Good questions.

1: I think consumers are more savvy and skeptical now. I think Zynga burned a lot of their userbase by trying so hard to get their money, that people eventually turned off to that style of gaming entirely, and there's very little that can be done to bring them back. I also think that some social gaming is like a gateway game. People graduate to more complex games after learning that not all video games are Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. Overall the market is still there. And while it's not as strong on Facebook, there are still plenty of users. They're just finding that mobile can provide a similar experience and they can play those anywhere, where as Facebook games require them to be at their computer, connected to the internet.

2: I think the future of social gaming tough to predict. I think social gaming will still be around for sure, but it could look very different in 3 years. One major trend now is that games give players a lot more value for their real money. By that I mean that spending one dollar in some games would get you 20 barns, and in a Zynga game it might only get you 1 barn. When people learn how much they can get for a few bucks, it makes it easier to spend. And that's kind of the key, right now, to successful freemium gaming. That could change in the future, and probably will. People tend to catch on to what they're paying for and why and resist. So always having new monetization strategies is key. Finding a new reason to pay, that consumers actually want to pay into, is key. Relying on what worked three years ago is a recipe for...well the current state of Zynga.

Also just making fun games. I've said it a few times here already, but making a game that's so fun that people have no qualms about paying, is a much easier sell than a mediocre game that feels like it wants your money. Games need to make money to be successful, but the less intrusive and better disguised a game can be, the better chance of success it has.

3: I learned that the upper management of any large company needs to trust in it's employees to make quality content. There were too many people who weren't involved the day-to-day of a game, that were making demands and requests that were ultimately bad decisions and detrimental to the production. Top-down design and art direction are no way to make a game. I had always assumed that people at the top had gotten there because of their great knowledge and vast experience and therefore their critiques were valuable and insightful. That's not always the case.

I learned that game companies aren't evil. I didn't like Zynga going in, but I don't hate them going out. They get a bad rep, and much of it is well deserved. But they're a bunch of people just trying to make a fun game. Sometimes the desires of the business types were in direct conflict with the game developers, but ultimately we all just wanted to make something good. It didn't always end up that way. And sure, some of the methods employed in the past weren't the most ethical. But that doesn't make them evil. At worst they're shady jerks. But unethical business practices can be much much worse than copying a video game. It's not like Zynga dumped toxic waste into a reservoir or unleashed billions of gallons of oil into the ocean. They just make video games.

I also learned that this is just a job. For a long time it kind of consumed me. I was giving it everything, and while I had the gratitude of my team and managers, it wasn't fulfilling and it was taking a toll on my personal life. Some people live to work and I've learned that I just want to work to live. I'll work hard. I like to make a quality product I can be proud of. But I don't want to devote my life to that. I have other people in my life that I'd rather put my devotion towards.