From a research project by Digi-Capital:

QuoteSocial gaming investment plummets

Investment in the game industry totalled $853 million from 165 transactions in 2012, a decline of 57 per cent from 2011.

Middleware and gamifcation led the way making up 35 per cent of the total investments made, followed by mobile at 31 per cent, MMOs at 18 per cent, social and casual at seven per cent and console/PC also at seven per cent.

Social gaming was blamed for the sharp decline, with a drop in investment of $1 billion compared to 2011, a fall of 94 per cent.

Digi-Capital noted that venture capitalists had abandoned social games investment during last year, excluding mid-core and social gambling, while some VCs even outside the social sector left the market completely.

Couldn't have happened to nicer people. :boohoo:
Seriously, when I was reading in Serious Business Periodicals about how Farmville was this big thing that would expand gaming and gaming profit margins beyond everything we have seen previously, and how it was like games but not really games because of <$BULLSHIT REASON>, I knew it would be over within two years. Apparently, it didn't even need that much.

At least we still have Second Life and Linden Dollars.

Interesting news.

One question, though; WTF is "middleware and gamification"?

Games where the core gameplay mechanic was a choice between paying and waiting (with the occasional option of spamming your friends) are on the way out?

Color me surprised.

Gamification is the brilliant idea of adding game mechanics to IRL work. It has immense market potential, and is the Next Big Thing (after social gaming and Linden Dollars). In the future, instead of doing a task and getting a regular salary for it, it will be a game with levels and achievements, and you will be happy with 60-70% the dough, because it's not work, it's FUN!

Quote from: The Butcher;621119One question, though; WTF is "middleware and gamification"?

Middleware is software tools for developers, mostly.  Havok is a middleware physics engine: you don't need to write simulation code from the ground up, but simply use existing plugins.  OpenAL lets you get most sound effects through without needing to deal with complicated base APIs.  GameBryo can do 3d rendering and animation; while Unity's somewhere between middleware and a full engine, with most capabilities necessary for simple games, and a scripting language capable of supporting more complex ones.
 
In this context, gamification is about adding game-like attributes to tasks.  CodingAcademy is a webpage that teaches basic programming languages (poorly).  It has a function where it calculates the number of lessons completed in one day, and provides achievements if you break certain thresholds.  Those achievements would be a basic example of gamification.

Quote from: beejazz;621123Games where the core gameplay mechanic was a choice between paying and waiting (with the occasional option of spamming your friends) are on the way out?

Color me surprised.

Some good stuff has came out of the social gaming thing - good free-to-play, where paying money gives you something cool (Like LotRO's adventure packs, that you can buy or earn in-game, or "coin doubler" type items that let you progress faster in games you enjoy) is a pretty neat thing, and I've bought quite a few coin doubler-type items (Punch Quest is amazing fun, a must-get if you have an iGadget), it's liek a modern-day version of the shareware concept. Bad free-to-play (Like SW:TOR's grudging "Well... you can play for free, but you can't have anything nice, like being able to walk quickly" or Farmville's "Sure, you can play for free... in a few hours.") is nasty.

Can't say I'll be sad to see Zynga die. I'm all for gaming expanding, more games for more players, but I'd rather it was actual good games, and not shameless cash grabs.

Quote from: Ladybird;621131Some good stuff has came out of the social gaming thing - good free-to-play, where paying money gives you something cool (Like LotRO's adventure packs, that you can buy or earn in-game, or "coin doubler" type items that let you progress faster in games you enjoy) is a pretty neat thing, and I've bought quite a few coin doubler-type items (Punch Quest is amazing fun, a must-get if you have an iGadget), it's liek a modern-day version of the shareware concept. Bad free-to-play (Like SW:TOR's grudging "Well... you can play for free, but you can't have anything nice, like being able to walk quickly" or Farmville's "Sure, you can play for free... in a few hours.") is nasty.

I'm the opposite, I find SWTOR's F2P model nicer because I don't have to buy quests, I can play all the way up to level cap without spending money.

Yes, not being able to sprint is annoying, but still, if you just want to play the storyline, SWTOR is perfectly fine. Most the quests are awfully linear, and there aren't a lot of them, so there isn't a lot of backtracking or running around.

And LOTRO actually does something similar, you need to buy the riding skill. If you sub, you can just get it by doing a little horse riding quest, but if you are F2P you have to buy it.

Sure, you can earn a few store points in game, but the rate is extremely slow.

Quote from: Melan;621126Gamification is the brilliant idea of adding game mechanics to IRL work. It has immense market potential, and is the Next Big Thing (after social gaming and Linden Dollars). In the future, instead of doing a task and getting a regular salary for it, it will be a game with levels and achievements, and you will be happy with 60-70% the dough, because it's not work, it's FUN!

But games are usually just learning minus the risk of real-life challenges.  No game could match the satisfaction of a job-well-done or breaking down a complex problem, kicking its ass, and seeing how that benefits the people around you.  Why would anyone in their right mind want to tack on bullshit?

Quote from: Peregrin;621175But games are usually just learning minus the risk of real-life challenges.  No game could match the satisfaction of a job-well-done or breaking down a complex problem, kicking its ass, and seeing how that benefits the people around you.  Why would anyone in their right mind want to tack on bullshit?

No one in their right mind.  There's a lot more folk in the world than that small subset, however.

Humans are prone to certain feedback loops.  A good portion of the populace actually does like this bullshit, sometimes more than a job well done and often more than the conventional rewards for small tedious work.  It can be a useful tool, whether operating to supplement conventional rewards, for long-term direction where multiple short-term tasks are present, or through competition.  Of course, it's also prone to disillusionment rather quickly, and favors speed over retention.

Quote from: Peregrin;621175Why would anyone in their right mind want to tack on bullshit?

A lot of stuff that goes on in large organisations where nobody is really responsible comes down to inertia and office opportunism. Ideas like this, the dumber sorts of team-building, or substituting fashionable management techniques sold by con artists get implemented because it is easier to sell upwards as a way to boost productivity/efficiency than looking at complex, usually human or organisational problems and fixing them.

Recently, a lot of effort in our organisation was expended on a really petty issue (basically what kind of e-mail address someone can, and should use for official communication). This wouldn't have happened before our institute got merged into a larger "research centre", because what mattered was doing your job any way that was efficient. Now we are stuck with nonsensical protocols that don't work because they aren't about activity but the illusion of "doing something about is" (very often about non-problems). So it goes.

Upon reading this thread all I can say is "Gamification, it's just so Dilbertesque."

Dilbert is more realistic than reality, and it is made of 100% cold, hard facts.

Quote from: Ladybird;621131Some good stuff has came out of the social gaming thing - good free-to-play, where paying money gives you something cool (Like LotRO's adventure packs, that you can buy or earn in-game, or "coin doubler" type items that let you progress faster in games you enjoy) is a pretty neat thing, and I've bought quite a few coin doubler-type items (Punch Quest is amazing fun, a must-get if you have an iGadget), it's liek a modern-day version of the shareware concept. Bad free-to-play (Like SW:TOR's grudging "Well... you can play for free, but you can't have anything nice, like being able to walk quickly" or Farmville's "Sure, you can play for free... in a few hours.") is nasty.

Can't say I'll be sad to see Zynga die. I'm all for gaming expanding, more games for more players, but I'd rather it was actual good games, and not shameless cash grabs.

I had assumed "social gaming" referred to the phenomenon I described. If not, I hope that's where the low growth is happening.

Wasn't really talking about (say) draw something's coin system (where you can earn coins in play or by paying).

Quote from: Peregrin;621175But games are usually just learning minus the risk of real-life challenges.  No game could match the satisfaction of a job-well-done or breaking down a complex problem, kicking its ass, and seeing how that benefits the people around you.  Why would anyone in their right mind want to tack on bullshit?

It has more benefits when it comes to rote, repetitive tasks with a low reward threshold than work that requires actual thought. Call centers use gamification quite often, for example. Call center work is uninteresting, stressful, and has a high turnover rate. Gamification is an attempt to improve engagement for workers in call centers to prevent turn over and improve productivity ratios.

For a non-workplace example, the site Chore Wars turns doing household chores into a competition with RPG trappings.

I have no idea how well this works in a real world workplace situation, but I've read some studies that suggest gamification of rote tasks does increase productivity. Give someone the job of pressing a button 5,000 times and they'll lose interest far faster than if you give them a game where they have to press a button 5,000 times to level up. MMOs use this principle to their advantage alot, with grinding for gold/gear to keep people playing.

Just to note, reduced investment doesn't mean the industry is in particular trouble, it just means vulture capitalists are abandoning it as a way to reinflate the dot com bubble. Zynga pretty much owns that space now, so there isn't much room for smaller startups to get noticed. It's the age of robber barons for social gaming, the little guy won't get much of a look in for another few years.