Social Gaming on Facebook

SOCIAL GAMING ON FACEBOOK

MA Thesis Media Studies

ABSTRACT

Since recent developments of the social game department on social network sites evolved to become lucrative and grew beyond niche market in attracting more than 510 million active users worldwide (as of 2012), hundreds of millions of people certainly like this new form of entertainment. While maintaining farms, playing puzzle games, and casually pastimes in virtual worlds and simulations, gaming applications evolved into a special phenomenon with several parties involved. Accessed through online platforms, major elements for in-game principles might be a sophisticated layer of social engagement on the one hand, and the specific platform politics on the other. In addition, in-game achievements are garnered around specific features accompanied by the ability to provide a service and entertainment on top of that. The role of the social engagement along the major incentive to motivate accordingly provokes desired effects. This level of involvement probably creates a multi-sided market directed towards (a) economic interests, (b) forms of value creation, and (c) persuasive designs built into the application. To address these issues, I conducted research identifying relevant findings collected first by the media, blogs, and articles. Later, the game review serves as the foundation from which to assess current findings and the discussion part, wherein findings have been carefully sorted into five analytical categories relevant for theoretical depth: the physical, the psychological, the language, the social dynamics, and the social roles.

Keywords

Table of Content INTRODUCTION...01 FACEBOOK INTRODUCTION...04 LITERATURE OVERVIEW...08 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK...15 FACEBOOK FUNCTIONALITY...21 PLATFORM FEATURES...23 CASUAL GAMING...24

SOCIAL GAMING ON FACEBOOK...26

FARMVILLE 2: COUNTRY ESCAPE...30

CANDY CRUSH SAGA...30

FINDINGS...31

POLITICS OF DEFAULT SETTINGS...33

FARMVILLE 2: COUNTRY ESCAPE...34

THE PHYSICAL...35

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL...37

LANGUAGE...38

SOCIAL DYNAMICS...39

SOCIAL ROLE...41

CANDY CRUSH SAGA...45

THE PHYSICAL...46 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL...48 LANGUAGE...50 SOCIAL DYNAMICS...51 SOCIAL ROLE...54 DISCUSSION...59

ZYNGA AND FACEBOOK RELATIONSHIP...61

APP ECONOMIC MODEL...62

THE SOCIAL...67

CONCLUSION...70

BIBLIOGRAPHY...75

INTRODUCTION

Social Network Sites (SNSs) have become increasingly interesting for the area of study and research about social impacts. SNSs provide a service in which the individuals “(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections” (Boyd & Elison, p. 211). Early forms of the social can date back to the late 1990s where preliminary forms were introduced to the American society which became largely popular.

However, it was Facebook to widely introduce ‘the social’ to the masses beyond American borders. Created in Feb. 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, the platform was driven by the concept to provide a service for social interaction and to provide a platform for the public to showcase personal profiles, pictures, and the ability to connect and maintain friendships (see Ellison et al.). Since all of that created rich datasets, Zuckerberg envisioned that in form of a stream where all events and notifications were displayed as news and stories. Starting with that in Sep. 2006, this feature evolved to become the heart of Facebook’s core functionalities. Ever since, the user’s home site displayed the 'Newsfeed' along with other forms of features, “a list of the most recent notifications from their contacts” (Grimmelmann, p. 7). Facebook holds the capacity for users to also join groups and to share similar beliefs, to enter extended interests with the ability to like, read, and share content. With these functionalities, Facebook “is becoming an enduring part of everyday life” (Patsakis et al., p. 245).

A variety of applications “found their way into these platforms” (Järvinen, p. 95). Accessible through the web interface and online browser, applications created their own communities, worlds, and genre. Along with an increase of accessibility, the market “has also become increasingly lucrative” (Lautman & Curran, p. 1). ‘Lucrativity’ is probably a drive for developers to compete within the relatively new market niche (Lautman & Curran, p. 2). Situated in the gaming department, the so-called casual gaming applications account as most successful and attract, according to Appdata.com, a massive monthly active user base. Therefore, social gaming has become an increasing phenomenon which often generates high bandwidth consumption at relatively strong traffic estimates in form of monthly active user rates versus daily active user rates (MAU/DAU). These apps run on Facebook for entertainment and socialization purposes (Järvinen, p. 95), and provide an integration for gaming on the SNS. To utilize upon this, the incentive to activate these as impulses and motivations in various forms engineered within the game and the platform is by far no coincidence. The process of commodification can start by leveraging these for

better marketing purposes and ways to engage about game specific features, achievements, and the social.

There has not been detailed research addressed about how the process of engagement is being involved within the social gaming environment, the app economy, and how the user involvement is intertwined on example of a case study approach. In academia, social gaming has not been widely addressed in relation to value creation and value co-creation. In bridging this, it will be important to understand the role of the application, the game, different parties involved, and the role of the platform politics. Experienced as a great lack of proficient academic research as well as little grounded case studies around the complexities in social gaming and relations in the value of co-creation between the application and the consumer, this research is directed to close a gap and to create a link to recent game studies and discussions about the value of the social. The social will become increasingly interesting to look at because of the probability of activity [or engagement] for a given user depending on the fraction of friends, a concept that thrives on the user base (Nazir et al., p. 11). Since social gaming aims for that probability of activity and utilizes along an involvement of the network structure, it will be important to describe these taking place within the application environment and see how these are communicated with the network and the platform. Taking this as ground consideration, who is behind and involved in the social gaming department, and what shapes the market? Why can games be casual and social, attracting hundreds of millions of people to engage further? What are the characteristics for the social gaming side to leverage competition or engage users, and what characterizes ‘social’ as being a ‘social game’? If all applications try to do the same which is to acquiring users, what are the significant findings?

Realizing this as a trend towards the casual gaming, I will touch base to look deeper into key debates about the application’s revenue model, user engagement, value creation, and the platform’s role. Initiated is the discussion about how Facebook realizes a process of engagement through the externalities of the platform specific spectra in which key elements stand in relation to how the developer utilizes along the platform’s functionalities to furthermore increase attractiveness and awareness. Addressing these as services on top of the platform’s structure, it will be key to see how this is directed towards the user and executed. On the example of the actual case study, the question rises about how the developer constructed the genre ‘social game’ and how he uses Facebook’s functionalities to engage and motivate further. Generalizing from key findings from the analysis, this paper will look into the most successful companies relevant for social gaming. Top developers in social gaming are Zynga with a total of 122 high participated games in relation to DAU/MAU, and King with 18 highly participated games in relation to DAU/MAU (AppData, Developer Leaderboard, retrieved June 30, 2014). And in particular, Zynga is most relevant due to its long year

prosperity and unique relationship with Facebook, and King because of its recent success as a casual game developer attracting millions of users from niche market to media leading company. It will be essential to investigate further and study Zynga and King in relation to how the process of user engagement and value creation works, and what app economic models exist on the specific example of the top tier social games ‘FarmVille 2: Country Escape’ and ‘Candy Crush Saga’. Whereas Zynga derived much of its traffic from Facebook with hit titles such as ‘FarmVille’ and ‘FarmVille 2: Country Escape’, King now leverages its competitors with hit titles such as ‘Candy Crush Saga’ and several other casual games that rank in top tier positions. I will address occurring relations deriving from this by observing the phenomenon in social gaming and framing the research around the case study approach to address questions of engagement, value creation, motivation, and persuasion on behalf of the two developers. How are these games arranged, socially conducted, and processed?

Delving deeper into the topic means to understand the role of possible platform connections, the observation of developer economic models, and how the social game is realized and executed both internally and externally (through the platform). Since this approach is based on real time observations, it will be important to acknowledge the social gaming sphere as world creator independent of the everyday world, indulging a possible concept of cash flow, and how this is realized as a form of social game genre in relation to politics and platform governmentalities. In what way is the casual gaming economy tied to the platform politics and its users? Observing the phenomena of the ‘casual game’, what is the role of the developer and Facebook to provide that service?

This paper illustrates these on the example of the gaming applications run on Facebook as primary cases to describe key findings in persuasive design, gaming aspects, platform directions, and the user relationship with correlation to the developer concept and ideas. Studying the relevance of Facebook in the context of SNSs means to observe and explore the existing social media sphere available on Facebook with the aim to generalize upon a smaller sample to “abstracting them into principles” (Järvinen, p. 96).

Acknowledging the online gaming sphere as a two-sided market (economic interest vs. user engagement) in which companies have been interested in entering the social platform by increasing the number of games, profit margins, and user immersions (see Lin & Sun), questions arise about what parties are involved and how these different interests are put together. There clearly is an importance to look deeper into levels of equilibrium between interests in casual gaming, entertainment, and exploiting on social engagements. Casual gaming as being oriented towards

serving the economical end and the user experience is a delicate handling to staying profitable. These relations are indeed the characteristics of the two-sided oriented market where strategies and motivations in persuasive concepts are supposedly put at work. Acknowledging that most of the cash flow can only be accessed through the user's incentive to buy in and to purchase virtual items, a certain form of motivation to do so must be built into the game structure. To understand the role of the app economic model and the two-sided market, what is the role of the revenue model for Zynga and King to drive towards an increase of profit margins exploiting the social and the social graph incentives?

Since developers in casual gaming have experienced to be profitable, the concept of ‘freemium’, and incentives to acquire high user bases by putting platform specific functionalities at work show proof of interest. Understanding the form of cash trading within the virtual will also explain how different forms of value are being created, co-created, realized, and gives a proficient level of knowledge about the assuming exploitable nature of the social gaming concept. A concept that only works by parts of the platform in which the online gaming market is “depending on sales of virtual props and equipment for their profits” (Lin & Sun, p. 335). To what extent than is the role of profit margin related to the platform where social relations play a significant part? On what account are these important for the application to increase awareness or motivation to get involved?

FACEBOOK INTRODUCTION

Facebook, by far the most dominant SNS, focuses on user engagement through social entertainment. It has grown from a dorm-room experiment into a business with more than 1.20 billion users worldwide (Kiss). Without compromising its concepts, founder and head Marc Zuckerberg started to roll-out his empire in 2004 (see Kirkpatrick, Intro). Facebook started to change the way people think about social networks, and the way people exposed themselves. Before that, personal information was predominantly seen as private and not a public matter. However, Zuckerberg observed a trend to change that and provided room to individually express oneself (Kiss). Before Facebook was ready to launch, Zuckerberg started to reach out to the public and programmed several other ‘social’ software programs such as ‘Coursematch’ or ‘Facematch’, early versions of the SNS. Zuckerberg gained valuable insights into the world of the social, its capacities, and experienced an increasing interest in the social department.

Finally launched on Feb. 04, 2004,- the platform's first approach was to profiling students and staff members within the faculties of Harvard University. It later became widespread use on other

universities all over the United States. Titled as ‘Facebook’ from August 2005, its attempt was to extent market niches beyond educational institutions and to open its platform to everyone, which happened in the following months (Yadav). By the end of 2006, already 12 million users were logged in to Facebook across US colleges, from which 60 per cent have been active every day. By then, it already reached a brand value approximately worth $100 million (Kiss). Mainly run by Zuckerberg, with some financial help from Eduardo Saverin, two other Harvard students conjoined the project to help with coding and programming.

Zuckerberg realized the potential of Facebook and dropped out of Harvard in 2006 to work full-time on the platform. Controversially founded with followed lawsuits, Facebook attracted investors to further believe in it. Therefore, it received a great starting amount of $500,000 by Peter Theil, a co-founder of PayPal, $13 millions by Accel Partners, an investor in Web 2.0 startups, and $25 millions from Greylock Partners. Facebook collected by far enough venture money to start rolling out its service to the general public (Yadav). It was clear to profit from advertisements other than charging membership fees to get a fast followership. Therefore, an increase in incentives to market Facebook stayed omniscient until today. The platform was subject for constant change and developments to keep users and advertisers attracted to its services (Phillips). For example, Its incentive to open its platform for third-parties to benefit from its rich database already stored by the platform, derived by the need to stay competitive. A level of attractiveness derived mostly by Facebook’s ‘social graph’ data,- the fact that Facebook retrieved and stored massive amounts of data about all users and knowledge that contains an immense in personal information “including name; birthday; political and religious views; online and offline contact information; sex; sexual preference and relationship status; favorite books, movies, and so on; educational and employment history; and, of course, pictures” (Grimmelmann, p. 9). To attract advertisers broadly businesses and developers, a decision was made to further ‘open’ Facebook’s platform for third-party developers. Therefore, the application programming interfaces (API) opened in 2005 to offer a free pass to connect to Facebook and benefit from the developer environment, an essential tool for anyone to create programs, applications, widgets, tools and projects,- something that was essential to stay profitable and competitive (Yadav). Followed by the developer platform in May 2007, Facebook offered software developers “a Facebook markup language and a framework to create applications interacting with core features” (Patsakis, p. 245). These services provided a variety of functionalities such as email, instant messaging, audio and video chat, as well as various applications for diverse business services or entertainment reasons (Patsakis, p. 245).

Nowadays, a total of 9 million apps are already listed on Facebook and build the largest part of products on the platform. Along with the social features already built into Facebook, it strategically drives the need for corporations to be part of the development in numerous ways and to compete “for users’ attention these days” (Darwell, Facebook platform supports more than 42 million pages and 9 million apps). App developers saw an enormous potential to leverage the possibilities for market shares, and the option for a large source of traffic with assuming high margin cuts (Darwell, Facebook platform supports more than 42 million pages and 9 million apps). Applications are available for a variety of reasons,- the service sector, marketing purposes, business solutions, entertainment, and gaming. Suites for Social Media Community Management account for marketing purposes, and applications in e-commerce serve the service sector with applications specialized in realizing webshops for Facebook. Others are specialized in automating content and schedule updates as business solutions, can automate processes and be multi-user friendly. Categories in the business sector consist mostly of customized service packages for Facebook, and entertainment applications provide a rich list of games amusing the consumer. Since content is most important drive for interaction and engagement, a variety of Facebook blog apps exist to automatically publish blog posts (via RSS feed) from e.g. Blogspot or Wordpress to garner around social conversation and traffic (Dyer).

Every app on Facebook is introduced in the App Center and comes with a detailed landing page that illustrates app specific elements such as graphics, captions, or promotional videos. Introduced by Facebook in 2012 to be more visually appealing and an improved permission request approach, the app center replaces the old app and game dashboard (Darwell, Facebook launches App Center with 600+ apps; new charts and categories improve discovery).

The permission dialogue of the social networking APIs “give third-party developers access to user data”,- often applications receive privileges as profile owners “and can query the API for personal information of the user and members of the user’s network” (Feld & Evans, p. 1). Within the technologically features and social graph data, Facebook’s App Center is broadly impacting third-parties to create services with and around the platform to highly benefit from social relations,- a form of commodification in which target advertising and data mining plays significant roles. There, applications plug “seamlessly into the Facebook site” (Grimmelmann, p. 7) and open the ‘social graph’ data to third-parties, data that usually cannot be accessed by companies,- a benefit and economic value is built into the system.

In 2012, Facebook went public and filed its initial public offering, one of the biggest speculated in technology with a peak market capitalization of over $104 billion. Later followed by

rumors about unfair internal stock practices, controversies and the relatively low ‘pop’ led to heavy accusations and lawsuits that have been filed by bankers and investors (Yousuf).

Nevertheless, by the end of 2013, the site’s estimated net value is worth $135 billion with yearly revenues about $7.87 billion, including a large $1.5 billion profit margin. With additionally almost 556 million people accessing Facebook via the mobile everyday, it generates around $1 billion mobile revenues from advertising alone. Therefore, Facebook emerged into a major business profitable with more than 1.20 billion active users, and leveraged to become by far the most dominant SNS that survived the dot-com burst in 2008.

(Kiss)

LITERATURE OVERVIEW

This section will introduce and give an overview about relevant literature which contextualizes the existing academic corpus with a theoretical framework important for further considerations.

FACEBOOK

One way Facebook has been examined is through the concept of ‘platform’ accompanied by the interest of social sciences (see Wilson et al.). Research has been conducted around Facebook’s extended ability for the cultural aspect with focus on the social impact in which the platform’s social specifications had inherently fascinated with opportunity to understand the corpus as a cultural reference point. As a matter of fact, researchers have scrambled to examine the corpus as a whole due to its rapid evolution, size, features, and changing policies. However, core elements stayed the same and broad examinations, according to Wilson et al., were identified as first the many “activities performed on Facebook (e.g., connecting to others, expressing preferences, providing status updates)” (p. 204) which accounts for observable data at stake, and second the platform’s immense popularity making it utterly valuable to study, assuming a change in the way hundreds of people connect and share information with each one another. Examining life in context has always been an interesting focus point for social scientists, but has become immanent important since the digital has become accessible for societies to express themselves. This means to have access to cultural references, a cultural framework with possible shifting norms “associated with comparing self-reports across cultures (Wilson et al., p. 208). A lot of focus can be realized through devoting oneself to academic articles written about Facebook on the variety of empirical findings and analytical reviews which are e.g. specifically investigated towards an aim to understand the social phenomenon by “generating a large pool of potentially relevant articles and then selecting a smaller subset of articles deemed relevant (...)” (Wilson et al., p. 205).

Additionally, a lot has been examined about the platform’s limitations of privacy and “accidental information disclosure, damaged reputation and image, unwanted stalking, and reconstruction of users’ identities” (Wang et al., p. 1). Focus points there have been the users’ motivations, intentions and concerns of what he/she is willing to share with the public as well as their perception of privacy and data sharing, realized through empirical and qualitative study approaches (Wang et al., p. 1).1 Research in that field tries to aim towards results to understand either the phenomenon or the issue, e.g. what data mean for privacy, and what industries benefit most from the social capacity and vice versa.

Moreover, Wang et al. acknowledged over 1800 most popular apps problematic in privacy compliance, such as methods of retrieving data along the conduct of the design of authentication dialogs for third-party apps on Facebook. Shehab e.g. realized the effect deriving by the online

1

This conduct leads to a more broadly observation and research scrambled about major questions about (1) Who is using Facebook and what are users doing while on Facebook? (2) Why do people use Facebook? (3) How are people presenting themselves on Facebook? (4) How is Facebook affecting relationships among groups and individuals?

network that thrives upon its openness to enable a rich channel of profile data sharing publicly with friends, but more importantly, indirectly with the developers which as well points to an extend in privacy debates and forms of commodification (p. 898).

PLATFORM / MULTI-SIDED MARKET

The platform’s openness therefore has widely led to research about platform politics, concepts, and theories. Studies are aimed to better understand different parties involved, and Facebook's role as 'quasi' commercial marketing tool. Since SNSs are in the mingle to serve several different parties, shared interest occurs when entering the platform with concepts serving both the economic and consumer end. That this provokes issues for the developer relationship and/or the consumer, discussions addressed approach multi-sided markets “that enable interactions between multiple groups of surrounding consumers and ‘complementors’” (Boudreau & Hagiu, p. 163). As a result, platforms attract different parties and provide a form of multiplicity in which interactions and relationships occur,- namely relationships provided by software kits for easy access and APIs.

The term ‘platform’ can be understood as a container of possibilities that work around “user-generated content, streaming media, blogging and social computing” (Gillespie, p. 351). This points to the social direction in which the ‘platform’ holds strong abilities for users to internalize within the range of communication tools and the ability to express oneself online in a participatory way (Gillespie, p. 351). According to Gillespie, a strong notion hereby is based around the accessibility,- an “offer of access to everyone” (p. 353) in which online content seems to exist and can be created by anyone who participates accordingly.

Following the notion of Boudreau and Hagiu on Katz and Shapiro, the higher the engagement on one side, the more attraction from the other (the advertiser, developer). This stays in direct connection to the question of how these multi-sided markets can leverage large numbers while “setting up a pricing model that maximizes platform profits” (Boudreau & Hagiu, p. 164). The platform will convey restrictiveness with both ‘openness’ and ‘closeness’ to garner internal structures with its platform participants (Boudreau & Hagiu, p. 164). Boudreau and Hagiu e.g. acknowledge that these restrictions are no simple price settings, but a delicate regulation of access and interaction around the two-sided market in which the implementation of a variety of technical mechanisms utilized as informational instruments take place (p. 165). A two-sided market “in which the structure, and not only the level of prices charged by platforms matters” (Rochet & Tirole, p. 1). We experience a two-sided market, or generally a multi-sided market, that is defined as a market in

which the platform primarily enables interaction between users. Therefore, the platform intermediates between the different sides by attempting to charge, manage, and operate,- but complicates the process if immaterial value at stake.

On the example of the application developer, both the user and the server-side need to be brought together “for markets to exist and gains from trade to be realized” (Rochet & Tirole, p. 2). The structure of the platform accurately dictates how this is realized, and the revenue being generated depends on how well these transactions between the user and the application is managed by the platform’s infrastructure. Simply put, the user of an application internalizes this in his purchase decision of virtual goods and sets an exchange value for the probable net surplus one will derive by purchasing,- which accounts as consumption regulated by market power other than price levels (Rochet & Tirole, p. 3).2 Moreover, gains from trades are a form of ‘interaction’ between the two sides in which the user (buyer) and developer (seller) indeed want to interact. Following core characteristics of the two-sided market, gains from trades are always tied to the usage value and depend on the individual’s decision on how much the surplus can grant as a plus (see Rochet & Tirole).3 Social gaming depends on a form of value creation where different parties are involved and Rochet and Tirole are indeed right to acknowledge the burden of the pricing being taken by one side, while the other pays little money on the other (p. 6).4 The essential relationship lies in the fact that these developments are characterized by the incentive to drive towards an increase in user engagement as well and the attraction for more participation on the two-sided market focus (Boudreau & Hagiu, p. 164). Gillespie points out that these incentives are primarily focused e.g. discursively on the service and technological aspect that sets future profits within fostering its market position (p. 348). In this context, summarizing the core of the term ‘Platform’, it can be understood as a discourse of concepts that work “across multiple venues for multiple audiences, providing an intermediary ‘platform’ rich in computational range and infrastructure (Gillespie, p. 349).

GAMING

2

See Rochet & Tirole for more information about mathematical explanations of different economic models important to fully assess upon the two-sided market.

3

On the example of the social game, the free access grants for the surplus value with a distinct in pricing, defined as the total price charged by the platform and the price structure referring to the total price allocation between the buyer and the seller (Rochet & Tirole, p. 6).

4

This has created some tensions lately between Zynga and Facebook e.g. The 30% margin cut for Facebook cannot be circumvent and discussions proof that if operating more independent, Facebook indeed cuts part of the service, mainly the access to social graph data (Kincaid).

Balnaves et al. observed a “particular focus on the question of value” (p. 1) and position social games explicitly into the field of ethnography with primary focus on evidence in relation to immersive processes. Findings have been only explored in the broader context of value creation in social games through game specifically access within the SNSs. Balnaves et al. acknowledge the notion of value creation for games, and the social aspect in particular. “The experiences of gameplay, and the broader social interactions possible surrounding social games, potentially creating value for the game company and players” (Balnaves et al., p. 1). With the advance of gaming applications on Facebook, a form of user retention is built into the game mechanisms that work only if users acquire quests through game activities that involve their network. The developer indeed builds upon the revenue model in form of in-game microtransactions and advertising by “refining the game mechanisms further” (Balnaves et al., p. 10).

Research in social gaming has been conducted in form of examining the different forms of exchange value (Balnaves et al., p. 4) which can attract its user base and start to roll out patterns of persuasion and motivation (see Fogg, A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design). Attached strategies to maximize outcomes intersect in exchange value and commercial interest which foster a higher level of connection and community feeling amongst users “while also providing revenue, and social graph and user information to both Zynga [e.g. the developer] and Facebook” (Balnaves et al., p. 8). Since the main mechanisms for in-game activity are built around the social engagement and cross-over use of virtual and real currency exchange, providing options to purchase in-app items has been at stake for academic research (Balnaves et al., p. 8). Kinder e. g. acknowledged the successive structure and based this around the social pressure of already existing network relations. She draws upon the assumption that a user can only achieve certain progress if one engages the social network. Without it, the gaming experience is bounded to its very basics and important progress cannot be gained (Kinder, p. 5). Kinder sees the social gaming sphere as a built up on top of the existing network in which the social triggers the importance of Facebook’s functionalities (Kinder p. 5-6). Moreover, Kinder points out that achievement and interaction can be publicly be published on Facebook walls which hold the capacity to express one’s approval and individualism (p. 9), but within the framework, the attractiveness for casual games derive by characteristics that bring casual fun, and depend on asynchronous5 conversations based on loose interactions (Kinder, p. 14). Elsewhere, Lin & Sun draw the line to Huizinga’s ‘Magic Circle’ in which the game’s specific

5

Asynchronous game-play is conceptualized for games in which a real one-on-one interaction does not sufficiently occurs and only mirrors a cooperation. This model borrows from the social capacity to integrate ‘friends’ that are not playing together but supporting each other on e.g. different time slots. See Kinder for a discussion about the

immersive progress can derive by fun and pleasure,- the question of how the game is specific enough in provoking these cues accordingly.

PERSUASIVE DESIGN

Rao acknowledged the very nature of the casual game which resulted in characteristics important for analysis reasons. Therefore, the casual game is easy to learn, provides fast rewards, and is simple to control along a universal gameplay (see Rao). Since Rao acknowledged a form of community feeling and participation, a certain form of quality through playfulness in design and virtual place can be inferred (p. 9-11). Lin & Sun acknowledge two concepts that adhere to an understanding of the virtual world creation, first the notion of a world being created utterly independent of the everyday real world, and second, the social gaming “preserves order in game worlds through the use of rules” (p. 336).

Borrowed from the psychological research popularized by Thaler and Sunstein, a theory applies known as ‘Nudge’. Nudge is a form of cognitive persuasion and triggers values of ability into decision making. Understanding the concept of ‘Nudge’, two cognitive sets have been popularized in social science, these are intuitive and reflective modes. The former produces “a constant representation of the world around us and allows us to do things (…)” and affects our “thinking, impressions, associations, feelings, intentions, and preparations for action(s) (...)” (Kahneman, p. 52). The latter touches base on the individual’s capacity to consciously think and deliberate about actions typically known as rule-based environments in which the visual system and associative memory produces a “coherent interpretation of what is going on around us” (Kahneman, p. 52). Since these two sets are continuously active and most of the time ambiguous to the individual, these modes play an important role in consumer persuasive models and can account for desired behavioral patterns. Thaler connects these to a theory of mental accounting that takes a form of mental coding of combinations of gains and losses (Thaler, p. 199). Grounded in cognitive psychology and microeconomics, one string of the social has been studied as a form of mental accountancy being applied to commerce in which the consumer-purchase-decision is essential for profit. The ‘decision’ relates to the individual’s ability to evaluate the transaction upfront and the ability to “approve or disapprove of each potential transaction. The first stage is a judgment process while the second is a decision process” (Thaler, p. 205).

Acknowledging the fact that “consumers often fail to behave in accordance with the normative prescriptions of economic theory”, theories occurred in which the pricing is transformable from utility into value functions (Thaler, p. 201).6

Drawing the connection to Fogg’s behavior model, these factors can provoke desired behaviors if triggered. This emphasis depends on a combination of motivation, ability, and triggers, the nature of the ‘social game’ as acknowledged in a mixture of influence and adjustment to independently act on behalf of the elements, described in detail by Fogg’s ‘A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design’ (p. 2-3).

VALUE

Different forms of value creation have been examined in relation to the value of the social and issues about the social in respect. The ‘virtual creative ability’ (Lazzarato, p. 187) can account for an extent in literature questioning the capitalism as a form of production of worlds in which the concept of value is tied to the consumer at the center of an enterprise’s strategy (Lazzarato, p. 188). Research is concerned about the digital capacity to possibly exploit the consumer,- a circle where the measurement for success depends on the substance of value as a commodity in relation to the amount of production. By this, Fuchs e.g. points out that this substance of value is indeed a form of ‘labor’ and draws on Marx’s notion that forms of pricing are equivalents to the labor objectified in a commodity (p. 634). Fuchs, who suggests a Marxian definition of the concept of class “where the value of goods is thought to be determined by the amount of socially average (or ‘abstract’) labour time needed for their production” (Arvidsson, p. 138). This sets the trend for others to conjoin theories about the value creation and allows for an interpretation of the production of co-creation aiming towards a model mutually beneficial for the company-customer relationship (see Zwick et al.) Literature acknowledges the form of value independent of its price model because ‘immaterial / intangible’ wealth comes in form of a production co-operated with the consumer,- “determined by affects and intersubjective judgments” (Fuchs, p. 635). The importance of value has been notably argued by Zwick et al. who identify value as something co-created, something that works through the consumer in ways of continuous emergence (p. 163). The concept entails a service-oriented logic that promotes the production of value as being mutually beneficial between the company and the customer. Borrowing from Zwick et al. who acknowledge this as a form of exchange value, “increasingly depends on generating and capturing iterative social communication and cooperation

6

between corporations and consumers as well as between consumers themselves” (p. 165-166). A distinct notion has to be drawn upon the observation that these use similar concepts of user engagement that create a certain form of valuation,- valuation that cannot be reduced to mere pricing and in-app purchases (Stark, p. 317) but is most likely connected to the process of ‘action’,- an action that provokes a desire to play with friends and the incentive to share with others to further engage with the network, all governed through in-app incentives- a desire that generates value in use.7 This indeed can be understood as valuation in some part of the performance in which the semantics of ‘valuing’ suggest that the very nature of value is characterized by the people who consider and personally like to see it as a result of their own conditions.

Similar discussions about the complexities in value creation have been covered by the academic corpus largely to aim either to understand the existence of economic models or to understand how value can co-exist apart from a mere price model,- along with forms of immaterialism in media theory deriving by value co-creation (see Arvidsson). Furthermore, following Lazzarato has been proven essential to understand the digital since “contemporary capitalism does not first arrive with factories, (...) it arrives with words, signs, and images” (p. 190). Understanding this as a form of deliberating freedom, Zwick et al. speak about a creative model that does not rest upon the notion of capitalism expressed through words, signs, and images, but establish “ambiences that program consumer freedom to evolve in ways that permit the harnessing of consumers’ newly liberated, productive capabilities” (p. 165). Furthermore, it rises along the aspiration that fosters contingency and playfulness among consumers which Michael Hutter notably acknowledges as the structure of performance within the positiveness for “theories of consumption, production and market coordination” (Consumption, Production and Markets in the “Experience Economy“, p. 1). Since the performance is essential, the value creation process for social value accounts for the consumption side in which the consumer chooses playfulness as primary source of entertainment (see Hutter, Consumption, Production and Markets in the “Experience Economy”).

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

APPROACH

In this chapter, I introduce my methodological framework in order to answer my research questions, and introduce supportive elements interesting for the case study. It gives important

7

For more comments about value and the economic value creation, please be advised to read Callon, M. and Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic Markets as Calculative Collective Devices. Organization Studies 26 (8): 1229 - 50. and Dewey, J. (1939) on the Theory of Valuation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

insights into what criteria and analytical concepts I have based my research on and how I encountered the corpus. It shows how I entered the field of study, explains my approach and verifies relevant steps. The chapter also illustrates how I analytically approached the social gaming genre in favor to answer the research questions on the example of two designated applications. To do so, important literature in social science and social gaming had been visited to establish an analytical gridline - a pattern - with which I could do my research more precisely and spot findings relevant for the discussion.

GETTING STARTED

To further discover my research questions, it was important to understand them in context of an exploratory approach with focus on ‘why’ questions, such as why the phenomena occurs,- and ‘what’ questions, such as in what context it takes place. Since a direct form of access into business concepts and official statements via direct interviews, and surveys with representatives have not been conducted, another approach was found. One way to elaborate on this was to base the research around the case study to empirically observe the inquiry as a multiple set of sources sufficient for evidence investigating in relation to modern phenomenons within a real-life context (see Yin). To understand the core functions of social gaming, possible ties in revenue generation and enrichment in user value co-creation, platform relationships and game specific principles had to be observed and discussed. To do so, it had been essential to situate my study in a well conducted context to enrich findings by introducing media discussions and publications as well as framing the context in social gaming, pointing to important key findings, and drawing on conclusions in relation to the academic corpus.

Starting with a well situated phenomenon, findings had been wide and broad at first. Initial points of interest had to be first discovered and narrowed down to keep the corpus focused. This method is also highlighted by Eisenhardt’s notion that a “random selection is neither necessary, nor even preferable” (p. 537). Continuing that it will be more useful to start with a limited number of cases, “situations and polar types in which the process of interest is ‘transparently observable’” (Eisenhardt, p. 537). This led to the approach to reach out to a smaller sample of results. Starting from that, background and context of the phenomena had to be built from various online sources. By browsing through types of documentation and developer sites, essential knowledge could have been established. “The many social media industry blogs dedicated to chronicling the lives of sites such as Facebook (...) have proved to be particular important sites for collecting data relevant to an

understanding of the structural aspects and mechanics” (Bucher, p. 75). To enrich this with a deeper level of proficiency, the collection of context was enriched by findings in assessing media reports, technical specifications, conference papers, developer discourses, information feeds, descriptive features and many more.

Relevant sources had been characterized as important to frame the research with ground observations. Acknowledging that without, important points for the discussion of multiple investigations could not logically follow (Eisenhardt, p. 533).

CASE STUDY

The nature of my research questions apparently entitled to see how assumptions resonated with the actual case study to “understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, p. 534). This approach had been straightforward and followed specific structures to extract knowledge and observations of how the two-sided market was processed in relation to game specifics. In order to do so, it was reasonable to start thinking of my research as an involvement of the genre ‘Social Gaming’ depicting on two popularizing cases to explain and compare further. Explaining important cues relevant for game immersion, a breakthrough could have been established by operating within an analytical gridline. According to Eisenhardt, this approach could have combined data collections, such as observations, paired with evidence, which granted a deeper access in academic layering (Eisenhardt, p. 534).

My study therefore is organized around the initial research question of how the revenue business model is integrated in the structure of social ties, and will shed light on recent app-economic models that assumingly play an important part, too. It will provide focus on the phenomenon and will work along key properties utilized by the economy, describing and observing game specific relations in order to see relevant connections (Eisenhardt, p. 535).

SELECTING CASES

Starting from an amass of data and sources in which dozens of applications have been available, choosing dimensions were important (Eisenhardt, p. 540). After examined a topological reconstruction of its accountability deriving by various sources, I have decided to continue with an applied and performative approach to only examine the ‘Social Gaming’ phenomenon. Wherein the role of specific revenue models had been at stake and top 10 tier game developers were impacting

the social on Facebook, its two main market players had been identified in doing outstandingly well by assuming a form of market implementation to exploit its market. Further assuming a certain economic model behind the market, characteristics must have been immanently observable as a special form of the social genre,- the ‘Social Game’. For an indication of how well a developer ranks on Facebook, I queried on AppData for relevant monthly active user (MAU) and daily active user (DAU) data to identify popularizing developers, which resulted in basing key discussions about the developers Zynga and King.8 Wherein interesting to assess for virality9 and monetization, MAU and DAU data is one way to look at the most successful and popularizing applications in social gaming, namely Zynga’s ‘FarmVille 2: Country Escape’ and King’s ‘Candy Crush Saga’. Furthermore, the type of methodological approach will derive by context-dependent knowledge gathering through forms of these applications (Flyvbjerg, p. 222).

GENERALIZATIONS

Furthermore, according to Flyvbjerg, it was legitimate to draw general conclusions relevant for the findings upon the case study approach, something that can be carefully abducted during the experiment,- the process,- case,- and experience (Flyvbjerg, p. 226). Following this trend in methodology of case study approach, the two developers Zynga and King indeed shared similarities which could have been observed through comparisons, and disparities characterized by its specific missions and concepts. This granted to drawing on general conclusions for each one of the developer’s game types. As according to Eisenhardt, “looking for differences can break simplistic frames. In the same way, the search for similarity in a seemingly different pair also can lead to more sophisticated understanding” (p. 541). Base findings have been sufficient enough to assume similar concepts as well for each games provided by the designated developers, and according to Flyvbjerg, a generalization “on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative to other methods” (p. 228).

To strengthen my point, similarities could have been found in between the social gaming genre for actually most of the game types. Some seemed to be mere clones of top tier games, and the developer “is copying the same mechanics, sometimes the same game, over and over again” (Cook).

8

http://www.appdata.com 9

Concepts of virality have been acknowledged during the process of research and characterized as important for further discussions and analysis, but could not be covered due to the specific approach of research. Further readings point to Parikka, J. (2007) Ephemera: Theory & politics in organization; Payne, R. (2012): VIRALITY 2.0, Cultural Studies.

SELECTING MATERIALS

According to Bucher, the right methodology approach when “confronted with ever-changing and mutable platforms” (p. 75) is through a careful documentation during the process of observation from which important categories and findings can derive. To assure a verifiable process of observation, I took screenshots to further document features, platform aspect’s, functionality aspects, governmentality, and differences between the two in particular. Therefore, a careful empirical phase and self-study of the applications has led to a rich material gathered by in-game interactions, documented as a continuous process stream and only limited by time and sufficiency. Therefore, every step could be individually assessed and opened for transparency. Following Bucher, these “snapshots of Facebook proved to be a useful way to document” (p. 75). This provides a systematical approach to illustrate step-by-step observations. Later, characteristics have to be indexed, recognized and logically examined, therefore analytical categories have been crucial for an explanatory approach in relation to building theory from the case study approach (see Eisenhardt).

SELECTING CATEGORIES

Acknowledging that “multiplayer role-playing games are motivated by aspects having to do with achievements in the game (e.g., competing, and advancing), and immersing themselves [gamer] into the game’s world” (Järvinen, p. 97), the social process along the platform and the game has become important key element to add more depth to observations. To base my findings on base ground, categories for a synthesizing framework showed higher importance to filter these through the different dispositions (Järvinen, p. 97). I will take Fogg’s five categories (see Persuasive Technology) as analytical directions and put these under scrutiny. This has been base material for an applied analytical approach within my case study and has been executed in terms of value creation and the process of user engagement with further commitment in relation to how the designated applications were going to attempt to implement these as possible design elements. The categories - or cues - helped to analyze the game structure and to characterize each finding into one of the five cues. These could have been identified in various forms and ways helping the analysis to be grounded in-depth and structure. A suitable table of the five main categories with descriptions helped to understand a simple comparison between the two designated applications and has been ground observation for further descriptions (see Appendix). These categories were helping to

identify game structures and characterized along specific game incentives to internalize user behavior according to platform externalities which could be observed as a submerge of such cues important to persuade and motivate the gamer. These observations were constituted around key cues that characterize and index in-app effects. Interface elements e.g. could be explained using the physical cues, the social layer could be explained using social dynamics and the psychological. Furthermore, the language aspect could explain higher immersive processes, and the social role about how to share, engage, or to trigger purchase behavior. All in favor of the game process, cues described a process important for game internalities and platform politics.

According to Fogg in ‘A Behavior Model For Persuasive Design’, these were “motivation, ability, and triggers” (p. 1). In the context of social gaming, different triggers could lead to the same behavioral pattern desired by the developer. To provoke such behavior, the game must persuade with a (1) fair amount of sufficient motivations, (2) provide the ability to perform behavior, and (3) built triggers that initiate the behavior (Fogg, A Behavior Model For Persuasive Design, p. 1). The following conceptualization of the cues can demonstrate validity of my observations to detect in-game mechanisms.

THE PHYSICAL

Together with the effect of attractiveness, game properties shared an analogy to the physical world in which similarities to real assets (such as tools, features, properties, graphics) built its social presence. A description of the physical yet digital follows according to Fogg’s ‘Impact of Physical Attractiveness’ in which colors, graphics, environmental aspects, and the interface play a significant role (see Persuasive Technology).

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

The psychological category could add emotive layers exchanged with the user to grant a level of attractiveness along a process of further engagement and immersion. Since the app is both an entertainment device as well a product in which emotions, preferences, and responses to personal taste set place, major observations could be explained by relating to Fogg’s notion of the group persuasion and emotions triggered (see Persuasive Technology). In connection, the examination of how the gaming experience leverages these implementations of the social pressure was at stake.

LANGUAGE

One form for further scrutiny has been the influence of language addressed by the designer, a form of computer interaction that was based upon aspects of the semantics to provide a form of cheering, motivation, and to provide a form of congratulation for achievements. These social norms and presences offered a way to further drive towards an increase in user immersion and possible retention consisting on the example of messaging, interacting, audio voiceovers, music, and other in-game motivations such as requests or specific social engagements (see Persuasive Technology).

SOCIAL DYNAMICS

Ideally discussed on the example of “unwritten rules for interacting with others” (Fogg, Persuasive Technology, p. 105), a process of engagement through social dynamics has been based on follow observations on example of the category of the ‘social’, what dialogs initiated a process of engagement, and what constituted the specific levels of ‘Social’ for the ‘Social Game’. In-game structures have been at stake to examine forms of gaming concepts, supportive elements, and the commercial exploitation of the network,- the platform. Game particularities that work along the platform politics could explain how the application mad use of incentives to push on the engaging momentum- “the potential for using technology to leverage social dynamics” (Fogg, Persuasive Technology, p. 107).

SOCIAL ROLES

Social roles could explain a form of concept in which the economy could serve as strategic incentives deriving by various sources to possibly increase the number of users attracted by the gaming experience through platform externalities as well as concepts and targeting. This has been base observation on example of platform politics using game specific outputs as a form of multiplicator or targeting, and with commercial use of the social graph to proliferate upon the network. Platform specific functionalities helped to do so and were well-integrated into particular application processes at stake.

FACEBOOK FUNCTIONALITY

Since the study approach is centered around the complexities of game specifications that also make use of the host platform as externalities, it is important to observe some of the main set of features built-in the platform that governs the social impact. In an attempt to address these, we can understand ties with the platform and concepts of those being already featured by Facebook in maintaining social relationships within users.

TIMELINE - WALL

Facebook’s core element consists of the user’s timeline and wall where content can be shared, photos be uploaded, content be generated, and ‘likes’ be expressed. It adds a mini-feed every time a user creates content and posts to the personal profile page (wall) to either individually maintain, expose, or to share stories that center around the person. These stories are saved on the profile page and are displayed live according to the user's relations and connections with the friend network, or privacy settings. Adjustable as an on-page element, content can be generated at one’s disposal addressing personal ideas, concepts, 'likes' and individualism (Sanghvi).

The game application uses these as a multiplicator to address game specific messages as according to the social role, and feeds one’s wall with updates, news stories, and in-game progress,- a cross-connection to the platform that builds upon the Facebook features already built-in the infrastructure to garner around the social network and awareness.

Facebook Timeline: Account: Christoph Rauch, Data retrieved: Mar, 29. 2014.

NEWSFEED

The NewsFeed, introduced in 2006, opened the timeline by adding another layer on top of it which accounts as one of the major core elements for Facebook until today. It operates as constant

feed generated and is refreshed live with new content deriving by several sources, friends updates, photo uploads, news stories, Facebook page updates, adverts, or advertising10. It brings all forms of the social together, displayed in one constant feed deriving by many sources and activities. The 'NewsFeed' is used by the game to share messages, progress, or stories- a form of social interaction that tries to engage the network, provokes curiosity and goes viral. Appearing on the main page after logging-in, these updates occur in form of news, headlines, and statuses. This feature allows for real-time updates and consists of personalized news stories according to one’s network, pages liked, or applications viewed. On the screenshot below, we can see how colorful and playful 'Candy Crush Saga' tries to garner the social for in-game messages exposed on the 'NewsFeed'.

Facebook NewsFeed: Account: Christoph Rauch, Data retrieved: Feb, 22. 2014. NOTIFICATION

The notification symbol is important for the platform and the user to provide a way to inform about interactions deriving by several forms of action and interaction. If clicked, a dropdown menu exposes all notifications consisting of one’s individual social engagements shared or liked by friends, comments, or updates received. Therefore, the platform provides a simple way to inform the user about content specific engagement. This is also the place where gaming notifications are displayed about requests, shares, or invites to also remind the user of in-game progress, provoking obligation, or requests,- a form of social dynamic where the network consists of friends that eventually provoke a further incentive to reply as desired or accordingly.

10

Notifications on Facebook: Account: Christoph Rauch, Data retrieved: Feb, 22. 2014.

PLATFORM FEATURES

SOCIAL GRAPH

To further benefit and build upon the social capacity of Facebook and its massive user base, Facebook opened its platform for third-party developers as an access point. It allowed third-parties to join its developer environment in the process of creating new features, applications, and games. The chance to also benefit from the data stored on Facebook created a further incentive to run a business. Until today, retrieving data by requesting ‘soft data’ from Facebook’s ‘social graph’ is key for many developers. As a matter of fact, the unique architecture of Facebook now offers developers a tool to gather data about its user base realized by the API structure to connect services through snippets of codes with the Facebook environment. “This made Facebook the first social network to give access to its API” (Yadav). The ‘social graph’, introduced in 2005, is composed of social relations deriving by Facebook “as the result of users connecting with their friends” (Kirkpatrick, p. 157).

According to Facebook, the real asset for the platform has been the maintation of friend connections which grants for access to an extent in user data approached by the ‘social graph’, calculated and organized by mathematical algorithms. Within that, Facebook retrieves data about network relations that can be applied to any sort of interaction, e.g. from photos about events, service applications, or entertainment, and “it could be employed to distribute any sort of information” (Kirkpatrick, p. 217). It can be attached to any service responsible for information gathering used by simple software environments to complex gaming structures on which the 'social graph' is connected to. This grants access to 'soft data' with an emerge in commercial interest and gives an explanation of why most of the social software applications use the social graph as access point to ‘free’ services (Kirkpatrick, p. 217). The social graph has emerged to become a powerful tool to collect and store data sets,- information by context and companionship depending on how much the user is willing to share.

CASUAL GAMING

Casual gaming can be traced back to 1990 where ‘Windows Solitaire’ was included in Microsoft’s operating system 'Windows'. It became widely accessible on every computer, and was simple to use serving the entertainment industry. Windows, as the platform carrier, granted a widespread of software use and opened a relatively easy access to ‘Solitaire’ already installed on every system,- a key component of introducing it to the masses. As later in 2000, ‘Bejeweled’ was launched by ‘PopCap’ and conquered the online arcade market. Again, with the Internet as a platform, accessibility to a larger audience could become lucrative. Games could exist on a variety of platforms with different technologies and built on top the programming,- however designer kits were targeted to making these more compatible to multiplatform usage (see Cheng).

With the increasing advent of casual gaming, a new form of social gaming adverted to operate within social network sites. A special form of the game was born and drawn upon the social network, popularized by titles that gained a large number of active users indicating a certain level of engagement and cash flow (Balnaves et al., p. 1). Operating along the social graph, it is fair to say that casual gaming essentially co-exists as a “representation of each user, his or her social links” (Cheng, p. 4). Facebook, with its large user base, became more attractive as host platform. After the launch of the application developer platform, the ability “to take advantage of the Facebook audience” has been fully adopted (Balnaves et al., p. 3).

With the “experience of game-play, and the broader social interaction possible surrounding social games, potentially creating value for the game company and players themselves in a number of different ways” (Balnaves et al., p. 1). Whereas widely accessible, games have proven to be popular in attracting a fair amount of users, who “generated significant commitment in terms of time, emotion, and, at times, money” (Balnaves et al., p. 1). For the platform, mutually benefit occurred, and e.g. Zynga alone “accounts for 12 per cent of Facebook’s entire revenue” (Balnaves et al., p. 1) as of year 2011, “making it the largest customer” for Facebook (Geron). Games on SNSs are a special genre on its own and be categorized as casual on a variety of key terms. ‘Casual’ requires minimal skill levels with the offering of maximum accessibility, realized “in a non-threatening environment with ‘real’ friends” (Balnaves et al., p. 2). The specific form of gaming can be defined by obligation, routine, and responsibility. According to Liszkiewicz, the game always brings a certain outcome, but does not require any special skills. Governed by habits, not rules, a simple cause-and-effect takes place in that the interface grants great effects (Liszkiewicz).

Casual gaming accounts for high traffic, cross-platform mobile use, and interaction in short-time engagements comfortable along the social network, strongly expressed by the social and user dedication (Balnaves et al., p. 2). Simple but effective mechanics play a significant role to account as credibility, some of which influence the social network, and target to increase one’s individual desire to play an optimal level of challenge. “That is, we are challenged by activities that are neither too easy nor too difficult to perform” (Garris et al., p. 450). The social game experience works along these terms and includes game progress employing gradually with more challenge with multiple goals over time. Acknowledging that Taylor describes the player as someone who cannot be taken serious in particular to technical skills, the casual game tries to simplify things. For Taylor, consequently the player might be viewed as someone who does not see the big picture, or is nearly as imaginative. Mainly as someone who does not understand the game mechanics and needs simple instructions, fast motivations and simplified game developments to interact with (Taylor). To adhere Fogg’s notion in ‘A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design’, to increase the level of ‘ability’, the casual game mechanics are simplified, and follow four rules:

- Rules and goals must be clear.

- Players need to be able to quickly reach proficiency. - Casual gameplay adapts to a player's life and schedule.

- Game concepts borrow familiar content and themes from life (Cheng, p. 1).

SOCIAL GAMING & FACEBOOK

SHORT HISTORY

Facebook and social gaming seems to have a unique symbiosis - developers in that field account for salient development and major avenues of entertainment (Smith). However, in the early stages of Facebook, there were no games implemented into its platform, and the phenomenon did not occur before 2005 with the idea to open its platform for third-party developers. In 2007, game developers took the course and entered the market with surprisingly high profit margins (A History of Facebook Gaming). Successful forerunners of today’s game titles have been ‘(Lil) Green Patch’ in 2008 already relying on Facebook’s social capacity. In this, players could not succeed without the engagement of friends, receiving feedback or requesting support. Following the basic rules of