'Super Whales' drop upwards of $10K on social games

If you've ever wondered just how much people are spending in FarmVille and other social games, a new report from Social Gold and Inside Social Games have found some (disturbing) answers. About 90% of social gamers don't drop a dime on these free-to-play games, but those who do, average about $60 a person.

That's not the unsettling part of the story. There's a tiny percentage of that spendy population, called "Super Whales,' who have dropped over $10K on FarmVille and its ilk. Social Gold, a company that provides microtransaction software to game developers, reports that one lavish spender in Saudi Arabia has dropped $25,000 (yes, you read that right -- 25 THOUSAND) dollars on social games and another in the US has invested nearly $20,000 in games as well. Can you say goodbye college fund?

One game maker says he ran across several hedge-funders who tried to out-spend each other in one of his games, dropping over a grand each on virtual armor and weapons. We predict it's only a matter of time until we see a bankrupt virtual farmer sobbing on Dr. Phil. Oh, the horror.

Google+ opens its doors to all, but (hopefully) mostly social gamers

The proverbial veil has been lifted, everyone. Google+ is finally open to the public, meaning anyone can join Google's social network regardless of whether they've been invited through a friend. More importantly, this means the service, which soft-launched back in August to a controlled amount of users through invites, is open to even more social gamers than before.

Granted, there are only 16 games so far on Google+ Games. But surely the company hopes, that with an influx of potential players, that developers will become even more interested in Google as a social gaming destination. However, there are several arguably basic social features that aren't yet a part of the Google+ developer API, or application programming interface.

Namely, the posts that players can push through to the Games Stream from a Google+ game are not interactive. This means that the viral nature of social gaming is severely hindered on the network--players cannot directly help one another through the Games Stream like the can through the Facebook News Feed. This essentially thwarts what is popularly believed to give social games their name.

At the moment, players can only post general updates such as, "I scored 5 bajillion points in Bejeweled Blitz!" However, Rovio played somewhat of a smarter game with Angry Birds on Google+ Games, and introduced a friend gate to most of its content, meaning players have to add so many friends to access new levels. Luckily, Google has already stated that it's working to introduce more robust features over time.

Regardless, omissions like this serve as proof that Google+ Games, while impressive in its scope, ambition and support, is still a nascent gaming platform when put up against competitors like Facebook. With this news, perhaps the race Google+ is running has changed track to whether Google+ Games can keep up with the demands and needs of its players, rather than its competitors.

[Via Inside Social Games]

Have you tried out Google+ Games yet? Do you think, after what you experienced, that Google has a chance at competing in the social games world?