Kate Cox is Full of Shit
... and anyone who tells you that Facebook is killing the gaming industry is fucking retarded.
"WoW's 10 Million Subscribers are Great ... Until you Look at Facebook's Billion" is an article so loaded down with rainbows and cookies bullshit about making games on Facebook that you could probably use it to induce vomiting.
This piece of "journalism" is such a shoddy piece of shit that it's THE definition of why gaming "journalism" isn't taken seriously.
This article cites two figures - World of Warcraft's 10 million subscribers, and Facebook's 1 Billion users - and highlights why the traditional gaming industry is dying and why the "new" gaming industry is where everything is headed.
Yeah, that's right: it's another full-of-shit foaming-at-the-mouth social-networking retard apocalypse article written by starry-eyed fuckwit with no business talking about business.
"Like OMG SOOOO FUNNNNNNN! THE WORLD IS RAINBOWS!"
This is what I think of when I think of idiots like Kate Cox.
Alright, I've been putting this shit off for too long: let's get down to the meat of things. We start off with this genius of a fucking comparison:
"[Facebook] is a platform that reaches ... 1/7 of the population of the entire world. (Sales of the Wii, 360, and PS3 combined reached roughly a quarter of that number.)"
Alright, full stop, right the fuck there. First off we're talking about two different business models:
Facebook "reaches" about 1/7 of the world's population. None of them pay money for access to Facebook. Their business model relies solely on ad revenue (after a brief, and utterly failed, foray into the "Facebook Credits" market). There are no accurate public measurements of how long each person is engaged with Facebook save of the PR bullshit Facebook puts out.
Console manufacturers reach about 1/12 of the world's population combined. Unless it's stolen, everyone with a console has purchased it with cold hard cash. Their business model relies on selling hardware at a loss, and making up the profit in first party software sales and third party licenses (or, in Nintendo's case, making money from the get-go). Nearly 100% of the time spent on the consoles is used to play video games (late-life consoles trend away from games, but a new generation is upon us).
So, we're comparing two completely different business models here - one in which the product relies, very heavily, on integration into other products (including mobile phones and gaming consoles) to a business model that relies on selling physical goods and making up sales on the back-end with additional software titles.
Oh, this is a good fucking comparison. Where is that World of Warcraft comparison? You know, that game you're shit-talking in the title of the article? No, we've spent roughly a quarter of the article talking about console manufacturers and Facebook, not World of Warcraft, like the title suggests. Good job, you fucking hack.
Are you fucking kidding me? Where the fuck is the comparison? Give me the comparison you fish-stained whore!
"If a developer wants their game to reach as broad an audience as possible, which most do, Facebook is clearly a good way to go."
Fuck, you're a goddamn idiot, Kate.
Developers do NOT want to reach the widest audience possible.
Most developers want to reach people that will ACTUALLYPLAY BUY THEIR GAMES.
A wide audience is the general public. The general public likes absolute garbage like The Big Bang Theory and Emeril Lagasee. The general public gets tricked by Jimmy Kimmel into thinking that an iPhone 4S is an iPhone 5. The general public is a filthy, brainless, unwashed pile of shit that doesn't want to spend any money, but wants awesome products.
Unless your product is something that human beings need in their daily lives - like the ability to fucking move around faster - then you DO NOT want to reach every single fucking human being imaginable. Why? Because your product will fucking fail, miserably. Unless your product is such a watered down piece of garbage - like Angry Birds - or it revolutionizes some aspect of our daily lives - like the iPhone - nobody will fucking buy it.
Games come in two flavors: watered down bullshit that everyone knows how to play, and games that only a niche plays.
Here's something you and your brain-dead posse of starry-eyed blogging assholes need to get through your collective heads: ChefVille is not Modern Warfare. These are different products for different people.
ChefVille is made for you and your retarded posse of estrogen-laced social-networking retards that spend all day sipping over-priced coffee from Starbucks then complaining about not being able to get on welfare.
Modern Warfare 3 is a niche product made for a specific audience that doesn't include you.
If you make any kind of niche product then you want that product to reach your niche audience. Facebook isn't a niche audience - Facebook is just a mass of user accounts that almost everyone has. The consoles are, and have always been, a niche product.
(niche, in business terms - something you're obviously unfamiliar with - does not mean "small" is means "specific")
Hey check this out:
- Average price of a video game on Facebook: $0.
- Average price of a video game on a console: $60 (soon to be $70).
Of course, the sales numbers matter a lot, and Facebook boasts a lot of fucking users. Kate knows this, and decided to push this nice piece of research out:
"The most popular application on Facebook is a game: ChefVille. As of today, it has 45.9 million monthly active users."
Wow, 45.9 million monthly active users? That's amazing! That's incredible! That's stupendous! That's ... not a lot of money.
Analysts currently estimate that Zynga - the much maligned, although always talked about like it's some kind of fucking rock-star social-networking-gaming-whatever company - only brings in about $0.05 per user, per month.
In case you can't do any fucking math, that number isn't fucking impressive. That 45.6 million users just became $2.28 million per month!
(That number is actually higher but because Zynga and Facebook are very unreliable in their SEC filings, we have to go with this lower estimate.)
Since Kate won't talk about World of Warcraft - because she's fucking horrendous - I will. World of Warcraft brings in $15 per user per month. At 10 million users, that's $150 million per month on just the base subscription service. Add in the cost of the expansion ($40, plus it sold something like 2.8 million copies so far), and you have a business model that makes a shitload of money.
Oh, just to make the comparison even more fair - ChefVille brings in 45.6 million users at $0.05/user/month. World of Warcraft's metric? 10 million users at $0.50/user/month. Do the math, stupid.
(Alright, to be fair, WoW's numbers have dipped over the last few years so that's not a straight-up fair comparison, but let's be honest, Facebook's MAU's and DAU's are a load of bullshit, at least my numbers are fairly accurate).
Of course Kate, being a fucking retarded monkey whose sole purpose in life is to make herself feel better for wasting her goddamn life on social networking, needs to compare ChefVille to the sales numbers of Modern Warfare 3.
"Even the reception of Modern Warfare 3 ... pales in comparison to the exposure that the top 20 or 30 games on Facebook receive worldwide."
Now, I'll give her that point: Modern Warfare 3 does not have 45.6 million monthly active users. Could you imagine 45.6 million users playing MW3? That franchise is already a festering shithole with its "low" numbers - I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like with that many people.
Artist's rendering of MW3 fanbase
It's not only an unfair comparison; it's an illogical one. We're comparing the number of people that use the product when we should be comparing the amount of money that each product brings in. Let's compare that, shall we?
Spock thinks you're full of shit, captain.
Going back to my awesome numbers from earlier, ChefVille rakes in under $2.5 million per month (Assuming stable MAU's and accurate analyst numbers, both of which are over-estimated bullshit). Modern Warfare 3, in its first 16 days, raked in $1 billion.
No, I'm not fucking shitting you. With less than 45.6 million users and its smaller "reach" Modern Warfare 3 brought in more money in 16 days for Activision-Blizzard than Zynga has in overall revenues in the past year.
Yeah, that's right you stupid fucking cunt: Zynga only brought in $1bn last year. A single game has made more money than Zynga did for an entire financial year. Oh, and Zynga's so goddamn irresponsible with its money that it actually had to write down half of the purchase of OMGPop and will post a net loss for this financial year of over $100 million.
Fuck, let's take this a step further and shit all over Facebook. For the fiscal year Facebook is expected to post revenues of $5bn. Compare THAT to Modern Warfare 3 (again, an unfair comparison, but since Kate Cox likes it so much, fuck it).
Business 101: higher margins means faster revenue growth. If a Modern Warfare game was released every 16 days it could earn $17bn at the end of the year (*cough* bullshit *cough*)
So, that's three pretty fucking awful comparisons there, Kate. What else have you got for me?
"Spend millions of dollars and years developing a game that can reach 5 or 10 million players, or spend a few hundred thousand dollars and a few months developing a game that can reach 30 million players?"
Oh, my dear Kate, it's so obvious you're a dramatic attention whore because you've placed more value on reach than you have on cold, hard, cash.
Kate, I have something earth-shattering to tell you: none of this is about "reaching" 30 million people and everything to do with economics.
You see, Kate, it's really hard to convince an investor to put down $30 million on a game - just ask Tim Schafer (something you've never done by, the way, and should never have the opportunity to do because you're too narrow-minded to be in this business in the first place). Getting an investor to give you that kind of money requires more than just a really good business plan and game idea - it requires a proven track record.
That track record, Kate? That's something almost every single Facebook developer doesn't have. Zynga had financial seed money because Mark Pincus has a proven track record of making money for his investors. Tim Schaffer has a proven track record of making money for his investors.
Those other guys? They don't have that track record, so they can't get that kind of money; but, they can sure as hell get $500,000 from a few angel investors to put their game together. Then, if they hit it big, that 45.6 million users is a great payoff. $2.28 million on $500,000 investment? I'd take that deal any day.
Compare that to the consoles. Only the big boys play on the consoles and with good reason: the average AAA game costs upwards of $40 million to make. Of course, that $40m brings in around $1bn in sales. See, it's an economics of scale thing, Kate, something your pea-brain doesn't fucking comprehend.
So, Kate, you're a fucking moron who is helping to bring the state of gaming "journalism" to a new low. Kotaku? You're a fucking joke for employing this brainless cuntbucket.
I give Kate 1 polar bear pooping out of 5. This was an atrocious article. Oh well, at least it wasn't Leo Laporte and Brian Brushwood's "Game On" bullshit.