Buy people and make them your pets! You can make your pets poke, send gifts, or just show off for you. Make money as a shrewd pet investor or as a hot commodity! Friends for Sale is the bees knees!Okay let's start with giving credit~ As the group pointed out, the name is probably the most succinct summary I've ever seen of a Facebook application. This app apparently lets you buy and sell your friends as pets, declare your wish to do so, and give gifts to them. While I feel the titular purpose of this app a little disturbing, there seems to be a sizable portion of Facebook users ready to disagree with me, so perhaps this meets some niche desire that I fail to fully empathize with ^^
The group then touched on the Seven Deadly Sins and Maslow's hierachy of needs. Where does Friends For Sale fit into? Probably Greed / Envy / Pride on the Sins, and Self-Esteem and Achievement on Maslow's list. While it might be pushing the definition to call playing such a Facebook game a sin, perhaps some people really do feel a greater sense of self-worth when they are deemed (or deem themselves) to have some form of superiority over others, especially if who they lord over are popular in their own right.
On a more technical note, I feel that the simplicity of the application worked well for them. With a lot of their features leveraging on Facebook's own capabilities, scalability would have been less of an issue during development. Also, starting the user off with some capabilities and value is a good idea, one that our app may have overlooked on our first iteration, as it ensures that the user can explore the game upon registration.
Having said all that, I still do not see the point of this application. What is there to entice me back regularly? Also, while I've not played much of other Facebook games either, I believe applications that offer an alternative life in some way (be it fishing, farming, or some other activity) would be more appealing than buying friends. How many friends are you going to buy to boost your ego anyway? And I would personally be really disturbed if someone "bought" me, even if it's only in a virtual world. Like, get away you control freak.
Alright then~ Time to go back and market penguins~ When you cannot fly, better make sure you're helluva good swimmer.
Hi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the application is very simple and it just looks outdated compared to all the flash games available. However, I think some takeaway points (my bad, could not cover in time) are still valid. This includes the way that the founders understood and applied the concepts of virality and the kind of metrics that they used for their A/B testing. They were also very smart to make full use of FB's resources for the bandwidth intensive features.
If something so simple could be so popular, why do we need a more complicated application? The time and potential for mistakes increases exponentially, so I feel that we should try to keep it as simple as possible especially when we are inexperienced.
Thank you for your feedback.. btw =)
ReplyDelete"Like, get away you control freak."
ReplyDeleteyeah Im a control freaka.
Strange enough, I thought ppl would get tired of this kind of app after they've been hanging around for a month or so, yet I checked the recent stats for FfS and it strikes me with a 5million monthly user cohort with the curve still going upwards..
which tells us how irresistable and alluring it is to play around with the virtual images of ppl u care and let them know, probably carrying implications that you purposely or unpurposely tend to convey..
i have to admit, after the seminar I decide to try the game and I found it fun... maybe I'm a control freak.. Nah. It's just that it's quite fun to be able to give "nicknames" and ask your friends to do things for your other friends - without their permission. Wuahahahah
ReplyDeletewhich tells us how irresistable and alluring it is to play around with the virtual images of ppl u care and let them know, probably carrying implications that you purposely or unpurposely tend to convey..
ReplyDeletewell for those who are comfortable with it, whatever floats your boat...
but i still cannot get myself to accept this idea, nor do i see any reason to force myself to... as far as i'm concerned, no one should be able to lay a monetary claim of ownership over another person's entire life and existence. and don't say it's just a game. the very idea is repugnant in and of itself.
putting it on facebook makes it all the worse. despite the age-13 limit, I know of some children in lower primary (my former tuition students) having facebook accounts. if they are accustomed to such an idea at that age, who's to say what kind of people they will turn out to be? while it may be unlikely that they will end up actively promoting human slavery, this "game" desensitizes and conditions them to the premise of one human's right to own another. and i believe that's inherently wrong. you may earn more, you may have accomplished more, but you still do not own any other person's entire life and existence, be it your subordinates, your employees, or anyone you choose to name.
err.... it's just a game?
ReplyDeleteNah. It's just that it's quite fun to be able to give "nicknames" and ask your friends to do things for your other friends - without their permission.
ReplyDeleteerr.... it's just a game?
well... i suppose that's a way of looking at it... perhaps the knowledge that my ex-students are on facebook as well changes the way i look at most of its apps...
that being said, i still disagree with the game's... is the word basis? ... of buying and selling people, or the fact that it places some form of monetary value on other people (your friends, no less!). while i wouldn't have any ill will towards anyone who "buys" me (as i said, whatever floats your boat), i've only been in the app long enough to explore its features and wouldn't go near it again with a foot long pole...
@Pat Ok maybe I don't have any ex-primary students on Facebook. But I think
ReplyDeletethis "game" desensitizes and conditions them to the premise of one human's right to own another.
sounds like a slippery slope argument. If this argument is true, I guess all kinds of PSP, NDS, PS3, XBOX games that the kids are playing nowadays should be banned!
@joshua I was a user too.. In fact at that point before I quit I was one of the user with alot alot of pets and money.. But it seems like I'm playing it like a investment game..
ReplyDeleteYou must grasp the desire of the owner of that pet, so that you know he/she will buy it back after that. In that way, you will earn money.. But you cannot buy the pet until the original owner has no money to buy back, if not you will be the next owner of the pet..
Haha.. Same game different perspective.. But the main reason I played it that way is because I need to buy gifts for one of my pets.. haha..
And when there's no more reason to buy gifts for that pet anymore.. I quit the game..
- Hong Jun
sounds like a slippery slope argument. If this argument is true, I guess all kinds of PSP, NDS, PS3, XBOX games that the kids are playing nowadays should be banned!
ReplyDeletecontrols like the ESRB for games and each country's movie rating system enforces some control over the availability of questionable content to minors, as there would be someone present to verify a buyer's age. if parents choose to buy such a game for their child, i would hope that they've reviewed it and deemed it suitable. i'm not about to question the effectiveness of such a solution (or if a child buys it online through a parent's credit card), but one cannot say it is wholly ineffective. contrast that to websites where minors can (and obviously do) lie about their age to gain access...
even if we take pre-teens out of the picture, would you be comfortable letting a kid 13 years of age play this game? i hope i'm not generalizing too much, but i think people would still be rather impressionalisitic at that age, and the premise of owning someone is not something i'd wish to impart...
so 13 y.o. = minors? Then maybe Facebook should resume the age-restriction to 18y.o.?
ReplyDeleteso 13 y.o. = minors?
ReplyDeletehaha oops i meant my first bit as pre-13 years of age. sorry for the confusion
@Hong Jun:
ReplyDeleteeven if we take pre-teens out of the picture, would you be comfortable letting a kid 13 years of age play this game? i hope i'm not generalizing too much, but i think people would still be rather impressionalisitic at that age, and the premise of owning someone is not something i'd wish to impart.
I totally agree. i think this is just a little scary. If you impress upon these kids that it's okay to control others and it's okay to enjoy from it, Im rather scared how they might take it to reality and perhaps really treat their friends as such. It'd make them rather selfish to a certain degree and in these case, where they can 'control' their pets, I doubt they'd care what others are thinking. This is rather dangerous and build an uncaring society.
Not to mention how one would feel upon different circumstances. Jealousy over friends for their high selling prices, self doubt when no one wants to buy you or bought you at very little cost, uncaring as you command your pet to do something, that they may or may not agree too. I just think that this whole concept on its own is not very good and may cause harm, definitely not something i'd want the children of the society, when they haven't mould their ethics yet to learn.
@Carol I see. It's not like I believe in the whole "Friends for Sale" idea and its ethics. But I think from the way Facebook is growing and how users are using it as an authentic social network, eventually the age limit will be set younger and younger. So maybe Facebook should set a age limit filter for apps?
ReplyDelete