It comes down to: did Zynga break the law as it currently stands (probably), is the law just (imo no).
These are multinational corporations. Applying labels like good-guy, bad-guy, underdog, etc are meaningless. The only question is whether they are lawful. Everything else is left to the consumer.
By the way, Zynga usually beats their competitors because in the long run their clones are better than the originals. Like it or not, but thats innovation.
By the way, Zynga usually beats their competitors because in the long run their clones are better than the originals. Like it or not, but thats innovation.
I think cross-advertising through their other games to their massive existing user base has much more to do with it.
because in the long run their clones are better than the originals.
Nonsense. Zynga just used it's position and money to better advertise, brand, & connect their games together using facebook as a marketing channel. MS did the same thing with Internet Explorer. IE had the highest market share all these years NOT because it was better than Netscape, Firefox, & Opera. But because MS used their position, money, and installed base. Once at the top, a monopoly is hard to overthrow.
More recently, that is true. But it doesn't explain how their early successes (poker, mafia wars, farmville) succeeded before they had the money and the market share to do those things. Back before they were a monopoly and back before they did cross-promos.
These are multinational corporations. Applying labels like good-guy, bad-guy, underdog, etc are meaningless. The only question is whether they are lawful. Everything else is left to the consumer.
By the way, Zynga usually beats their competitors because in the long run their clones are better than the originals. Like it or not, but thats innovation.
edited for civility :)