This is very, very good for Facebook. They are upgrading their brand and image by doing this.
The major reason Google+ Games did not succeed is that preferential treatment was given to mainstream developers (e.g. Zynga) who didn't expect us to thrive and therefore gave us their second-string stuff, as opposed to indie developers who would value us and the access we could offer them and give us a very high (brand-defining) level of quality. Having raised this issue, and having proposed an alternative strategy that would have worked exceedingly well, is the major reason I am no longer at Google.
Facebook gave preferential treatment to Zynga too, so that can't be the reason Google+ Games did not succeed. Perhaps it is more relevant that Google+ is not widely used and those who do use it are less likely to be into things like Farmville (demographics).
Facebook gave preferential treatment to Zynga only after they proved that they were the most popular. They had to fight their way there - it didn't start that way. It's still a bit dangerous to do so though because users' tastes may change, so good on Facebook for removing their special status.
As you said, Google+ had no such information, and gave companies special status out the gate before proving their popularity. If Facebook did the same thing, their top apps would probably look a lot different.
Comments
I name this Praziquantel Day.
(Praziquantel is a drug used to kill tapeworms.)
This is very, very good for Facebook. They are upgrading their brand and image by doing this.
The major reason Google+ Games did not succeed is that preferential treatment was given to mainstream developers (e.g. Zynga) who didn't expect us to thrive and therefore gave us their second-string stuff, as opposed to indie developers who would value us and the access we could offer them and give us a very high (brand-defining) level of quality. Having raised this issue, and having proposed an alternative strategy that would have worked exceedingly well, is the major reason I am no longer at Google.
Facebook gave preferential treatment to Zynga too, so that can't be the reason Google+ Games did not succeed. Perhaps it is more relevant that Google+ is not widely used and those who do use it are less likely to be into things like Farmville (demographics).
Facebook gave preferential treatment to Zynga only after they proved that they were the most popular. They had to fight their way there - it didn't start that way. It's still a bit dangerous to do so though because users' tastes may change, so good on Facebook for removing their special status.
As you said, Google+ had no such information, and gave companies special status out the gate before proving their popularity. If Facebook did the same thing, their top apps would probably look a lot different.
To beat an incumbent, you have to be superior.
I'm a little confused as to who exactly "us" refers to in your post, could you clarify please? "We" as generic consumers, "we" as developers, other?
Google+ users / generic consumers.
I had completely forgotten about Google+ Games... Are there numbers on how many people are playing games on Google+?
> having proposed an alternative strategy that would have worked exceedingly well
Indeed! I, too, have proposed numerous alternative strategies to many people which would have worked exceeding well had they been implemented.
It's really frustrating to watch people persist in ideas they know are bad just to keep rank.