Facebook To Make ‘Facebook Credits’ Mandatory For Game Developers(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook To Make ‘Facebook Credits’ Mandatory For Game Developers
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/24/facebook-to-make-facebook-credits-mandatory-for-game-developers/
12 comments
MS doesn't have portable gaming. Sony's PSP is pretty much dead from a lot of their stupid choices. The NDS has a huge foothold and is an overall _better_ gaming option, and the 3DS looks promising.
Apple will get the market of $3 casual games, but that market does not have a huge overlap with the DS demographic, and where it does, there is less barrier for an iPhone owner to get a DS than there is for a DS owner to get an iPhone -- you can get a used DS for less than a monthly AT&T iphone bill.
Not to mention that the DS is much cheaper than an iPhone, and has multiplayer/networking built in.
Apple is doing fine, and will continue to do so, but they are absolutely not going to unseat the DS any time soon.
[ As a comparison, there have been ~60 million iphones sold, and about 135 million NDS, while iPhone adoption is strong, it has a way to go to just bowl over nintendos foothold. ]
Apple will get the market of $3 casual games, but that market does not have a huge overlap with the DS demographic, and where it does, there is less barrier for an iPhone owner to get a DS than there is for a DS owner to get an iPhone -- you can get a used DS for less than a monthly AT&T iphone bill.
Not to mention that the DS is much cheaper than an iPhone, and has multiplayer/networking built in.
Apple is doing fine, and will continue to do so, but they are absolutely not going to unseat the DS any time soon.
[ As a comparison, there have been ~60 million iphones sold, and about 135 million NDS, while iPhone adoption is strong, it has a way to go to just bowl over nintendos foothold. ]
Why are you comparing the DS to the iPhone when the elephant in the room is the iPod Touch?
An 8GB iPod Touch is cheaper than the pricing of the 3DS. For completeness we're looking at $249 for a 3DS and $170 for a DSi [1].
What's more a typical new release 3DS game will sell for $30+. Compare that to the typically <$5 for an iOS game. Now you describe those iOS games as "casual" but I see games like Angry Birds that can hold the attention for a long period of time. What's more, you can afford 10-20 of those games per DS game!
Honestly I've never played a DS so I really don't know but are the games really that much better to not feel the heat from Apple? We're talking an order of magnitude difference in game costs and not too dissimilar hardware costs.
[1]: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nintendo-DS/Nintendo-DS-Hardware...
An 8GB iPod Touch is cheaper than the pricing of the 3DS. For completeness we're looking at $249 for a 3DS and $170 for a DSi [1].
What's more a typical new release 3DS game will sell for $30+. Compare that to the typically <$5 for an iOS game. Now you describe those iOS games as "casual" but I see games like Angry Birds that can hold the attention for a long period of time. What's more, you can afford 10-20 of those games per DS game!
Honestly I've never played a DS so I really don't know but are the games really that much better to not feel the heat from Apple? We're talking an order of magnitude difference in game costs and not too dissimilar hardware costs.
[1]: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nintendo-DS/Nintendo-DS-Hardware...
Good point on the iPod touch being cheaper (and not needing a contract). However the 3DS isn't out and will not stay at that price long (thats the japanese launch price which is usually different from US releases).
> Honestly I've never played a DS so I really don't know but are the games really that much better to not feel the heat from Apple? We're talking an order of magnitude difference in game costs and not too dissimilar hardware costs.
Yes, they are.
I think what gets me about these conversations is that it is typically people with smart phones who might play games casually, I have never heard the "Apple will beat Nintendo" argument from someone who uses both.
Here, look at a list of the top iOS games from last year: http://wireless.ign.com/articles/106/1063222p27.html
With the exception of GTA: Chinatown wars (which is a DS port), those games are all nostalgic remakes (space invaders, oregon trail), puzzle ports (peggle) or generally pretty simple/shallow games.
These are great diversions for 5 minutes waiting for a train, but most of them are not "great" or even "good" games. I admit that the iOS is versatile, but it has a lot of its own limitations, many of which coming from the fact that its _not_ a games machine.
The DS has its own share of shovelware, certainly, as do all platforms, but it is a dedicated gaming platform, and the games on there are leagues better.
Also, individual games cost $30 new at release time, but that cost goes down significantly quickly.
Nintendo said a few years ago they consider the iphone to be a competitor, but they are not stupid and have the same focus on high product quality (hardware and first party software) as apple, with a better attitude towards their customers, and have innovated and outmaneuvered and outsold sony and microsoft (and helped run sega out of the console market) at practically every generation.
The two markets actually _are_ different, even though superficially similar, and Nintendo isn't going to just disappear because iPhones/iPods support games any more than twitter disappeared after facebook implemented status updates.
> Honestly I've never played a DS so I really don't know but are the games really that much better to not feel the heat from Apple? We're talking an order of magnitude difference in game costs and not too dissimilar hardware costs.
Yes, they are.
I think what gets me about these conversations is that it is typically people with smart phones who might play games casually, I have never heard the "Apple will beat Nintendo" argument from someone who uses both.
Here, look at a list of the top iOS games from last year: http://wireless.ign.com/articles/106/1063222p27.html
With the exception of GTA: Chinatown wars (which is a DS port), those games are all nostalgic remakes (space invaders, oregon trail), puzzle ports (peggle) or generally pretty simple/shallow games.
These are great diversions for 5 minutes waiting for a train, but most of them are not "great" or even "good" games. I admit that the iOS is versatile, but it has a lot of its own limitations, many of which coming from the fact that its _not_ a games machine.
The DS has its own share of shovelware, certainly, as do all platforms, but it is a dedicated gaming platform, and the games on there are leagues better.
Also, individual games cost $30 new at release time, but that cost goes down significantly quickly.
Nintendo said a few years ago they consider the iphone to be a competitor, but they are not stupid and have the same focus on high product quality (hardware and first party software) as apple, with a better attitude towards their customers, and have innovated and outmaneuvered and outsold sony and microsoft (and helped run sega out of the console market) at practically every generation.
The two markets actually _are_ different, even though superficially similar, and Nintendo isn't going to just disappear because iPhones/iPods support games any more than twitter disappeared after facebook implemented status updates.
> Here, look at a list of the top iOS games from last year:
Do you play iOS games? I ask this because I do and that's not a great list. It's the kind of list I'd expect from a content farm that picked 25 games seemingly at random.
For one thing it doesn't include Angry Birds (either version), Plants vs Zombies, Bejeweled 2 and many, many others.
Perhaps you likewise have misperception when it comes to mobile gaming?
> These are great diversions for 5 minutes waiting for a train, but most of them are not "great" or even "good" games.
I think you're coloured by your own predilections. I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour. As for games being "good" or "great", well that's largely subjective.
As an anecdote, my 10 year old nephew has an iPod Touch and plays games on it all the time (when he's allowed to have it that is). Thing is, all his friends have one too.
> Also, individual games cost $30 new at release time, but that cost goes down significantly quickly.
Yes but iPhone games start at (rarely more than) $5 and go down. Angry Birds is one dollar.
A lot of games are free too, some totally so, others ad-supported (eg Angry Birds on Android). Not that Android has an iPod Touch equivalent (yet anyway).
> ... with a better attitude towards their customers
I think your bias is showing here.
> Nintendo isn't going to just disappear
True but, in the phone market as one example, I'd rather be Apple than, say, Nokia or RIM.
Do you play iOS games? I ask this because I do and that's not a great list. It's the kind of list I'd expect from a content farm that picked 25 games seemingly at random.
For one thing it doesn't include Angry Birds (either version), Plants vs Zombies, Bejeweled 2 and many, many others.
Perhaps you likewise have misperception when it comes to mobile gaming?
> These are great diversions for 5 minutes waiting for a train, but most of them are not "great" or even "good" games.
I think you're coloured by your own predilections. I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour. As for games being "good" or "great", well that's largely subjective.
As an anecdote, my 10 year old nephew has an iPod Touch and plays games on it all the time (when he's allowed to have it that is). Thing is, all his friends have one too.
> Also, individual games cost $30 new at release time, but that cost goes down significantly quickly.
Yes but iPhone games start at (rarely more than) $5 and go down. Angry Birds is one dollar.
A lot of games are free too, some totally so, others ad-supported (eg Angry Birds on Android). Not that Android has an iPod Touch equivalent (yet anyway).
> ... with a better attitude towards their customers
I think your bias is showing here.
> Nintendo isn't going to just disappear
True but, in the phone market as one example, I'd rather be Apple than, say, Nokia or RIM.
> Angry Birds (either version), Plants vs Zombies, Bejeweled 2
All of these are examples of "shallow" or puzzle games. That's not to say that they're bad games, but it's simply not in the same market as DS games.
> I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour.
And that's an outlier. I was a kid of the Pokemon generation. I'd sit and play those games (and similar) all night, only stopping to do homework.
For a good example of what the DS market is, I'll look at the top games under "DS" on Gamefaqs. This isn't a perfect representation (represents activity on the site vs sales), but it'll do. 1 to 3 are all Pokemon. 4 is a Kingdom Hearts game, a series known for it's story more than anything. 5th is Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, a traditional RPG. 6th is more Pokemon. 7th is Dragon Quest IX, another installment in the classic RPG series. I can't speak for the rest of the list because I don't know the games mentioned, but by now you should have noticed a trend: RPGs and story. These are games that (as a kid) I'd play for an hour at a minimum. You can easily get 20 or 30 hours out of these and that's before replay value (which absolutely ridiculous when you're talking about Pokemon).
That $30 isn't just something to keep you distracted on the bus; it's something you'll put some time into playing. I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like something you just aren't getting as a "non-gamer". I don't mean that in a bad way, but to me there's a massive difference between Angry Birds: February Edition! and the next installment in an RPG series I know and love. One will give me quick diversion while I wait in line, but the other one will offer me hours upon hours of entertainment and story.
Edit: Apologies for the tone of this post. I love Angry Birds and similar for what they are, but I have a pet peeve about people conflating casual/social games with video games as a whole.
All of these are examples of "shallow" or puzzle games. That's not to say that they're bad games, but it's simply not in the same market as DS games.
> I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour.
And that's an outlier. I was a kid of the Pokemon generation. I'd sit and play those games (and similar) all night, only stopping to do homework.
For a good example of what the DS market is, I'll look at the top games under "DS" on Gamefaqs. This isn't a perfect representation (represents activity on the site vs sales), but it'll do. 1 to 3 are all Pokemon. 4 is a Kingdom Hearts game, a series known for it's story more than anything. 5th is Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, a traditional RPG. 6th is more Pokemon. 7th is Dragon Quest IX, another installment in the classic RPG series. I can't speak for the rest of the list because I don't know the games mentioned, but by now you should have noticed a trend: RPGs and story. These are games that (as a kid) I'd play for an hour at a minimum. You can easily get 20 or 30 hours out of these and that's before replay value (which absolutely ridiculous when you're talking about Pokemon).
That $30 isn't just something to keep you distracted on the bus; it's something you'll put some time into playing. I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like something you just aren't getting as a "non-gamer". I don't mean that in a bad way, but to me there's a massive difference between Angry Birds: February Edition! and the next installment in an RPG series I know and love. One will give me quick diversion while I wait in line, but the other one will offer me hours upon hours of entertainment and story.
Edit: Apologies for the tone of this post. I love Angry Birds and similar for what they are, but I have a pet peeve about people conflating casual/social games with video games as a whole.
Ok, I'll bite.
I bought Street Fighter 4, and I expected the game play to suck on iOS without a D-pad. The graphics exceed any fighting game I've seen on the DS, and the game play is true to the original.
As for the market for DS games, a lot of the big winners for the DS were casual games (the DS legitimized "Brain Games"). Much of the Brain Game genre is easily/faithfully reproduced on iOS.
The driving games I've played on iOS seem better than the DS, and even the hockey game that I got on iOS (I believe it's 2K sports) plays surprisingly well.
Beast Boxing is a pretty good rendition of Punch Out too.
Yeah, all the casual games on iOS get the glory, but there are deep console level games for iOS that can rival games on the DS.
I bought Street Fighter 4, and I expected the game play to suck on iOS without a D-pad. The graphics exceed any fighting game I've seen on the DS, and the game play is true to the original.
As for the market for DS games, a lot of the big winners for the DS were casual games (the DS legitimized "Brain Games"). Much of the Brain Game genre is easily/faithfully reproduced on iOS.
The driving games I've played on iOS seem better than the DS, and even the hockey game that I got on iOS (I believe it's 2K sports) plays surprisingly well.
Beast Boxing is a pretty good rendition of Punch Out too.
Yeah, all the casual games on iOS get the glory, but there are deep console level games for iOS that can rival games on the DS.
I recognize it is not a great list.
Disclaimer: I do not have an iOS device. I actually have an old blackberry, and will likely get an android whenever that gives up the ghost. I have a handful of games that I play on it (none of them very good) when waiting for a train, or similar smaller diversions.
I have used them, and I work around people who use them and play games. I am aware that the list was not great, a similarly thrown together list of the "best" NDS games would be better.
I would love to see a current top 25 with the actual best iOS games. I would like to see how many of those are exclusives (which nixes plants vs zombies and angry birds). And yeah, "good" and "great" are subjective, but the crowd of people buying "the oregon trail" are most likely buying it because they played it in 3rd grade and its a nostalgia trip, not because of its "gameplay", and I would wager most of those install just get a few runs until people realize how dull and tedious it is.
Now, all that being said, I do have a DS, Wii, PS3 and 360, a haphazard steam collection. On top of that I am at level 21 on kongregate, so I have played a _lot_ of casual and flash based games, and I still play them. The wii gets the least amount of play of any of those (basically just a dedicated netflix streamer at this point). My points are not to come across as a nintendo fanboy (though thats not an unfair thing to say), but as a gaming platform, the DS offers quite a lot that is not obvious. It is a dedicated gaming platform, and people who are looking for that will still want it even _if_ they already have an ipod. It will be the only place where you can get mario, and pokemon, zelda, and layton, and phoenix wright, for a long while.
The online stores for the various consoles (and steam) are packed with games for under $5, that doesn't stop people from lining up at midnight to plunk down $60 for the next call of duty.
The reason? The games are _that_ much better, and the people who care and play those games know the difference.
> I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour. Me too. Angry birds is decent (have it for ps3 -- bug screen w00+!), with a lot of levels (i'm about 65% through the levels, though not trying to get 3 stars). Its still a really basic game, the production values are low and is decidedly "casual".
That, and it seems that it is your example for a good game, and seems to have taken the throne from plants vs zombies. Cool, so as a gamer, if I want a portable system, what do I get after that?
It literally took me a couple _years_ to get through the whole phoenix wright series (5 games). Thats playing regularly, but not daily, and many sessions of more than an hour. This is for a largely text/dialogue based game with point-and-click adventure elements. There were other things I played as well, and there are a lot of options after that.
Maybe my opinions show that I don't have a complete understanding of "mobile gaming", but you seem to not really understand "gaming" in general. And I am not even a hardcore gamer.
>> ... with a better attitude towards their customers > I think your bias is showing here.
Here is a real simple example: When the wii came out there were some problems: the straps were too weak, and the gyro at the tip of the wii-mote was fragile. Nintendo came out, acknowledged it, fixed it with future production and sent out free replacements and cases for all their current models without question.
Apple released a new iPhone with a known reception problem, Jobs said "just don't hold it that way". Eventually, they grudgingly offered a refund on a case, never admitting there was a problem and blaming the users.
Or maybe look at the huge amount of fan remakes, hacks, fan-art, and dedications to nintendo and their cultural impact. Then consider that apple was suing its fans for using the term 'podcast', when the term itself is in reverence to the ipod itself.
Not to mention that they supported and would service replace ALL of their hardware until ~2007 (with the wii virtual console, they finally EOL'd support for the NES/SNES).
Anecdotally, when I was in high school they replaced a 10 year old controller with a brand new one for free when I took it in for repair. Also, I don't know any 10 year olds, and I don't know anyone who owns an iPod touch (but quite a few with iPhones). I know lots of people with DS's, even the ones that aren't serious gamers. I have one friend that has two, just to play mario kart, and the second so a friend can play along.
> True but, in the phone market as one example, I'd rather be Apple than, say, Nokia or RIM.
I agree, and I'd rather be Nintendo than THQ or Sega.
An install base of 135 million is nothing to sneeze at, and people have been second guessing and trying to bury nintendo for 25 years, ever since they reinvented the console and proved there was a market there in the early 80s.
Apple will have its share of success, but nintendo knows how to make and sell games better than _anyone_, and they know how to do it while widening its audience and making a profit on every piece of hardware sold.
In the end, I'm really just pointing out that Apple is entering a market where they have been traditionally weak (games), with a competitor that is traditionally very strong, with a long track record of success, and a phenomenally large install base, yet the prevailing HN attitude is that they should be shaking in their boots.
Games make the system, not processing power, or hardware specs, or "retina vision", or whatever else. This has been proven time and time again. iOS has a few fun casual games that are popular, but they are in a race to the bottom with prices that for the most part have not pulled in support for major studios or flagship games. That is not to say that they never will, but the mobile market as it is is decidedly casual and geared toward small studios.
I have used them, and I work around people who use them and play games. I am aware that the list was not great, a similarly thrown together list of the "best" NDS games would be better.
I would love to see a current top 25 with the actual best iOS games. I would like to see how many of those are exclusives (which nixes plants vs zombies and angry birds). And yeah, "good" and "great" are subjective, but the crowd of people buying "the oregon trail" are most likely buying it because they played it in 3rd grade and its a nostalgia trip, not because of its "gameplay", and I would wager most of those install just get a few runs until people realize how dull and tedious it is.
Now, all that being said, I do have a DS, Wii, PS3 and 360, a haphazard steam collection. On top of that I am at level 21 on kongregate, so I have played a _lot_ of casual and flash based games, and I still play them. The wii gets the least amount of play of any of those (basically just a dedicated netflix streamer at this point). My points are not to come across as a nintendo fanboy (though thats not an unfair thing to say), but as a gaming platform, the DS offers quite a lot that is not obvious. It is a dedicated gaming platform, and people who are looking for that will still want it even _if_ they already have an ipod. It will be the only place where you can get mario, and pokemon, zelda, and layton, and phoenix wright, for a long while.
The online stores for the various consoles (and steam) are packed with games for under $5, that doesn't stop people from lining up at midnight to plunk down $60 for the next call of duty.
The reason? The games are _that_ much better, and the people who care and play those games know the difference.
> I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour. Me too. Angry birds is decent (have it for ps3 -- bug screen w00+!), with a lot of levels (i'm about 65% through the levels, though not trying to get 3 stars). Its still a really basic game, the production values are low and is decidedly "casual".
That, and it seems that it is your example for a good game, and seems to have taken the throne from plants vs zombies. Cool, so as a gamer, if I want a portable system, what do I get after that?
It literally took me a couple _years_ to get through the whole phoenix wright series (5 games). Thats playing regularly, but not daily, and many sessions of more than an hour. This is for a largely text/dialogue based game with point-and-click adventure elements. There were other things I played as well, and there are a lot of options after that.
Maybe my opinions show that I don't have a complete understanding of "mobile gaming", but you seem to not really understand "gaming" in general. And I am not even a hardcore gamer.
>> ... with a better attitude towards their customers > I think your bias is showing here.
Here is a real simple example: When the wii came out there were some problems: the straps were too weak, and the gyro at the tip of the wii-mote was fragile. Nintendo came out, acknowledged it, fixed it with future production and sent out free replacements and cases for all their current models without question.
Apple released a new iPhone with a known reception problem, Jobs said "just don't hold it that way". Eventually, they grudgingly offered a refund on a case, never admitting there was a problem and blaming the users.
Or maybe look at the huge amount of fan remakes, hacks, fan-art, and dedications to nintendo and their cultural impact. Then consider that apple was suing its fans for using the term 'podcast', when the term itself is in reverence to the ipod itself.
Not to mention that they supported and would service replace ALL of their hardware until ~2007 (with the wii virtual console, they finally EOL'd support for the NES/SNES).
Anecdotally, when I was in high school they replaced a 10 year old controller with a brand new one for free when I took it in for repair. Also, I don't know any 10 year olds, and I don't know anyone who owns an iPod touch (but quite a few with iPhones). I know lots of people with DS's, even the ones that aren't serious gamers. I have one friend that has two, just to play mario kart, and the second so a friend can play along.
> True but, in the phone market as one example, I'd rather be Apple than, say, Nokia or RIM.
I agree, and I'd rather be Nintendo than THQ or Sega.
An install base of 135 million is nothing to sneeze at, and people have been second guessing and trying to bury nintendo for 25 years, ever since they reinvented the console and proved there was a market there in the early 80s.
Apple will have its share of success, but nintendo knows how to make and sell games better than _anyone_, and they know how to do it while widening its audience and making a profit on every piece of hardware sold.
In the end, I'm really just pointing out that Apple is entering a market where they have been traditionally weak (games), with a competitor that is traditionally very strong, with a long track record of success, and a phenomenally large install base, yet the prevailing HN attitude is that they should be shaking in their boots.
Games make the system, not processing power, or hardware specs, or "retina vision", or whatever else. This has been proven time and time again. iOS has a few fun casual games that are popular, but they are in a race to the bottom with prices that for the most part have not pulled in support for major studios or flagship games. That is not to say that they never will, but the mobile market as it is is decidedly casual and geared toward small studios.
It's entirely different markets. The "gamer" market segment generally isn't going to settle for iPod touch games. It's like saying Flash games will kill PC Gaming.
You know, I used to dismiss the iPhone/iPod touch as a gamer device, but I don't any more.
I think your argument is a little inaccurate. The "gamer" market segment may not settle for casual games, but there are plenty of deep gamer quality titles on iOS, they just don't get the same attention as the casual titles.
I think your argument is a little inaccurate. The "gamer" market segment may not settle for casual games, but there are plenty of deep gamer quality titles on iOS, they just don't get the same attention as the casual titles.
It's funny how Apple charges 30% for in-app purchases, and that instantly becomes 'industry standard' in the minds of lazy TechCrunch writers. The cut taken by most virtual currency providers on Facebook is about a third of that.
The 30% figure can only stand up in an environment without competition. Luckily for Facebook (and Apple), they can create an environment without competition by fiat.
The 30% figure can only stand up in an environment without competition. Luckily for Facebook (and Apple), they can create an environment without competition by fiat.
And its that 30% figure which is going to prevent Facebook credits from becoming a wide-spread e-currency. There are many payment systems out there (Paypal, Google Checkout, etc.) that have lower fees and looser terms of service than Facebook. Its one thing for Facebook to mandate this for their own network. It'll be quite another for Facebook to push this service out onto the Internet as a whole.
Right now the vast majority of Credits are spent on gaming, but it’s very likely that Facebook will eventually begin allowing third-party websites to offer a ‘Pay With Facebook’ option, and that may include everything from digital content to physical goods.
Why would physical goods sellers use an upstart payment platform that takes a 30% transactional cut when there are tons of established financial firms who will do the transactions for 3%-5%?
I mean the fact that they are making this mandatory means that they can't even organically convince vendors who are selling virtual goods on facebook's own platform. Surely this is facebook worship hand waving.
Why would physical goods sellers use an upstart payment platform that takes a 30% transactional cut when there are tons of established financial firms who will do the transactions for 3%-5%?
I mean the fact that they are making this mandatory means that they can't even organically convince vendors who are selling virtual goods on facebook's own platform. Surely this is facebook worship hand waving.
I guess the idea is that if FB has your card details it'll be a bit like Facebook Connect and will lower transaction friction. Which is exactly what Paypal does. Except - and it's quite incredible really - as a purchaser I'd trust Paypal much more than I trust Facebook, I don't want my purchase history being sold along with all my other personal data thankyou.
The idea of trusting something less than Paypal is amazing, go Facebook!
The idea of trusting something less than Paypal is amazing, go Facebook!
If someone doesn't like facebook, now is a very good time to have DOJ slap them around for anti-trust, just like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
If those major developers were told "close a deal because we're willing to mandate using credits" then Facebook deserves to be punished for anti market practices. There is little difference between "hey my OS is popular, let me use it to bootstrap my browser share" and "hey my Social Network is popular, let me use it to bootstrap my payments product".
If those major developers were told "close a deal because we're willing to mandate using credits" then Facebook deserves to be punished for anti market practices. There is little difference between "hey my OS is popular, let me use it to bootstrap my browser share" and "hey my Social Network is popular, let me use it to bootstrap my payments product".
Heh, Facebook will need to continue making special deals with major game-makers. Facebook Connect can be used to implement all of the social features these games have incorporated. Asking a game-maker to stay with Facebook and ignore the 30% cut they're taking is unreasonable after the product is popular. I can see the cut become an automatically tiered percentage based on the amount of transactions being done. The more transactions, the lower the cut.
Facebook simply does not provide enough value after these games are popular to justify a 30% cut. In all honesty, it hardly provides enough value at the beginning. Nothing says social games cannot exist without Facebook at all.
Facebook simply does not provide enough value after these games are popular to justify a 30% cut. In all honesty, it hardly provides enough value at the beginning. Nothing says social games cannot exist without Facebook at all.
If they start allowing the sale of non-digital goods on Facebook, they had better drop the 30% cut. That'll never fly with retailers, no matter how much exposure their Page gets them. Current payment processors take about $0.10 per transaction.
Was about to post the same thing. You'll never get 30% on a retail product. In effect it would make everything you "buy with Facebook" 30% more expensive since there isn't that margin there, and that would kill the concept quick.
I also question how wide spread this would be. I mean yes it has the potential to be huge but I purposely don't connect my Facebook account to anyone else (no Login with Facebook for me) because of their shoddy history with privacy. Last thing I'm going to do is attach payment info, esp since I don't play any games in the system. I'm not saying this won't be huge, but I am saying it's not going to be ubiquitous.
I also question how wide spread this would be. I mean yes it has the potential to be huge but I purposely don't connect my Facebook account to anyone else (no Login with Facebook for me) because of their shoddy history with privacy. Last thing I'm going to do is attach payment info, esp since I don't play any games in the system. I'm not saying this won't be huge, but I am saying it's not going to be ubiquitous.
If they start allowing the sale of non-digital goods on Facebook, they had better drop the 30% cut
Agreed, 30% is a ludicrous amount for anything outside of Facebook. Now, if they could offer comparable rates to PayPal, I for one would sign up overnight. Is it that crazy to think that they could topple PayPal's current monopoly on low-end[0] payments?
[0] I couldn't think of a better way to describe it, but if you aren't based in the USA, UK, Australia etc, there aren't a lot of options for getting your first buck for your web app etc.
Agreed, 30% is a ludicrous amount for anything outside of Facebook. Now, if they could offer comparable rates to PayPal, I for one would sign up overnight. Is it that crazy to think that they could topple PayPal's current monopoly on low-end[0] payments?
[0] I couldn't think of a better way to describe it, but if you aren't based in the USA, UK, Australia etc, there aren't a lot of options for getting your first buck for your web app etc.
if you aren't based in the USA, UK, Australia etc, there aren't a lot of options for getting your first buck for your web app etc.
http://flattr.com? They hail from Sweden, and are quite eurocentric.
http://flattr.com? They hail from Sweden, and are quite eurocentric.
flattr.com? They hail from Sweden, and are quite eurocentric.
I've only had a brief look, but it seems like a fairly unsatisfactory way of implementing billing for a web app. I accept that I could be missing something obvious - can you let me know if I've got it wrong? :)
I've only had a brief look, but it seems like a fairly unsatisfactory way of implementing billing for a web app. I accept that I could be missing something obvious - can you let me know if I've got it wrong? :)
You're right, I'm sorry.
It lets you transfer small amounts on the web, but it's not for billing.
It lets you transfer small amounts on the web, but it's not for billing.
FaceCash (http://www.facecash.com), which my company runs, takes only 1.5%. We're not in any way affiliated with Facebook, but our system does use an image of your face to verify identity at the point of sale.
Isn't the Secret Service going to have a problem with this? I thought making your own currency was a huge no-no, and if it gets too popular they are going to have a hell of a time passing it off as something else to the government.
"You may not accept Credits as payment for a currency or other stored value item that can be used outside of the application."
"You will not (and you will not enable or allow any third party to) sell Credits to, or trade or otherwise exchange Credits with, any third party."
In short, Facebook Credits cannot be a commodity / currency. They're closer to gift cards, storing value only.
[0] http://developers.facebook.com/policy/credits
"You will not (and you will not enable or allow any third party to) sell Credits to, or trade or otherwise exchange Credits with, any third party."
In short, Facebook Credits cannot be a commodity / currency. They're closer to gift cards, storing value only.
[0] http://developers.facebook.com/policy/credits
Its not going to be an issue, I think. I mean, Microsoft is already doing something very similar with Microsoft Points on XBox Live.
EDIT: Actually, all the major game consoles use "credits" rather than actual dollars for their online transactions. If they can do it for their platforms, Facebook can do something similar for its own platform.
EDIT: Actually, all the major game consoles use "credits" rather than actual dollars for their online transactions. If they can do it for their platforms, Facebook can do something similar for its own platform.
It's not much different than eBay requiring PayPal.
I was to be under the impression that it is not illegal to create your own currency. I believe the secret service protect "dollars" and issues related to that such as counterfeiting. If you have a link that says otherwise, i'm very much interested!
I remember the days when you only had IRS dip into your pockets. Now everybody wants to take a turn.
It's actually industry standard for the publishing platform to take ~30% as the article says. XBLA, Steam, and PSN all do this as well.
It may seem like a lot, but those users wouldn't be available to you without the platform supporting you.
It may seem like a lot, but those users wouldn't be available to you without the platform supporting you.
I think the 30% concern is largely from people who see this growing into a paypal sort of service. 30% to sell virtual cow-feed is standard. 30% to sell a book or some jeans is not.
Whether Facebook intends to go that way or not, people seem to be assuming it will.
Whether Facebook intends to go that way or not, people seem to be assuming it will.
If/when they do launch a "Pay with Facebook" feature, I'm sure they're aware that they'll have to come up with a fee schedule that's competitive with existing vendors like Paypal. I wonder if that would force them to lower their take on Facebook apps as well, or if they could finagle a way around that...
Its not hard to imagine FB could become the primary virtual currency for everything within a very short timeframe.
At a 30% cut, I find that hard to believe.
Good point, but keep in mind they have 500M+ users. Almost everyone willing to buy into virtual currency is already on Facebook
What does having a Facebook account have to do with being willing to use a virtual currency? I'm willing to use virtual currency and have a Facebook account, but I'll never use Facebook's credit system. I don't want Facebook to know what I'm buying.
Why not? People already trust FB with all their intimate details and relationships. I don't trust them either, but I'm pretty sure plenty of other people would.
Of 500M+ users even if a tiny fraction adopted it, it would become a huge deal. I don't know what the stats are for virtual currency adoption rates, but even the most widely adopted currency probably wouldn't match what the entire Facebook ecosystem would bring in
Of 500M+ users even if a tiny fraction adopted it, it would become a huge deal. I don't know what the stats are for virtual currency adoption rates, but even the most widely adopted currency probably wouldn't match what the entire Facebook ecosystem would bring in
Why the downvotes? Was this not a constructive comment?
I'm not endorsing their currency, just saying they have the muscle power to thrust their virtual currency into the forefront. Its not like I'm saying I want it that way, just that its a realistic scenario.
I'm not endorsing their currency, just saying they have the muscle power to thrust their virtual currency into the forefront. Its not like I'm saying I want it that way, just that its a realistic scenario.
Oh god no. As a Facebook app developer if something like this becomes official it would be like the end of the world.
Where are you GOOGLE ME?! SAVE US!
Where are you GOOGLE ME?! SAVE US!
This may be true but, for me, TechCrunch has gotten to the point where anytime I see one of their headlines I think it's sensationalist linkbait and I'm better off assuming what they're writing is exaggerated or simply not true.
As for the claim, it may be true but I really don't think it matters and this is something that's important for anyone assessing FB as an investment.
Facebook used to own social gaming. Arguably it still does. But it faces a huge threat, one which it hasn't remotely tackled: social gaming--and non-social gaming for that matter--is going mobile in a huge way.
Facebook gaming is built on Flash. As we all well know, Flash is incompatible with iOS and doesn't really suit touch-based interfaces for those platforms that do support Flash (eg use of rollovers and so on). That's not to say that you can't write a mobile-friendly game with Flash but, to date, most people haven't (in my albeit limited experience).
Facebook is, for most people, three things (IMHO): games, photo sharing and chat/messaging. FB's revenue seems built on ads and games. They're acting like they've got the market cornered on games but the don't. As Facebook usage goes mobile (as I believe it increasingly is), the draw of those games goes down and consequently so does the potential revenue.
Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should already be scared to death of Apple as far as portable gaming goes. I think Facebook should add itself to that list.