They probably get paid to implement Facebook connect on their million+ userbases though. So it may make more sense that way. Although to be fair allowing access to 750m (fb) users is a sensible enough argument.
That was a smart move. Their product is different and does not compete with Facebook
Sadly implemented dumbly; why on earth would I give them offline access to my Facebook account? Or, rather, I understand why, but don't understand why they won't let users try the service first, and then show them what they're missing out on by not granting offline access. Bizarre.
It also requires access to share on your Facebook wall without notifying you, which it seems to do after each game you try out on the website. Removing specific permissions from an application on Facebook is a much harder task than it seems to be. Also, if it requests so much information from Facebook, why does it still require me to type in my birthday and upload a picture of myself?
If they don't have a button that says "share" that you click before it posts that's a TOS violation and will likely be changed quickly if the FB compliance team is paying attention.
Fact of the matter is that install rates often don't change much when you ask for additional permissions. Most users don't care. There's often no compelling reason to build out complicated permissions flows when the standard "ask for it all up front" works just fine.
Have a source for that information? Facebook's own API documentation page says: "There is a strong inverse correlation between the number of permissions your site requests and the number of users that will allow those permissions. The greater the number of permissions you ask for, the lower the number of users that will grant them; so we recommend that you only request the permissions you absolutely need for your site."
They were acquired in 2009 by MOL[1], an online points and payments system. MOL already has gaming infrastructure and points mechanisms built out (as well as a Friendster-branded internet cafe and licensable cafe management software[2]) - this looks like a push to gain traction for game-related payments in the US market, already popular in much of Asia. If they can start to eat away at Zynga's share, it makes a world of sense.
I remember back in the day, when friendster was first starting up. Some users like to have what you could refer to as 'gag' accounts, named things like "Root of All Evil". The people of friendster really didn't like that, and tried to squash all those accounts. I think it kind of streisanded them a little bit all those years ago.
Is there a benefit to using the Friendster brand? Isn't it universally known as could-have-been social network? Why not just use whatever their resources are to start something fresh?
Simple name recognition is enough to get a lot of people to trust your site. People are a lot more willing to "log in with facebook" on frindster.com than they are on "Hi5.com".
If they had chosen a new domain name they'd have nothing to separate them for the failing Hi5.com, which went from attempting to be a social network to doing the exact same thing this new Friendster is doing (logging in by Facebook and playing games).
"living the game" - angle does immediately speak alot to me as something that is not FB and not G+ etc. Gamers like their other world/networks to exist on.
So, they lost the social graph game and now focus on the popular social game market. It's what zynga failed to do until now. There's huge audience and the monetization is guaranteed if they enroll virtual currency. if they can prove they can gain traction and provide a platform that is easy to convert to, I'm game.
They should have launched with a big social game player (obviously not zynga, who has an agreement with Facebook). However there are thousands of independent developers, and remember there were many killer apps before zynga came along.
I'd like to have been in the room when that discussion took place.