[Aethaeryn]

  > The 'hanging out' part was key, and I am convinced that if
  > Blizzard could figure out a way for folks to sit down and play
  > cards or checkers or something it would be popular.

The problem with Zynga is that they built up casual games around a general purpose social network. I agree that social-oriented minigames would provide a much better user experience if they were built around a larger game environment, like a high-quality MMO. People who form groups in games want to be able to socialize, so social mini-games built around such a game is a good idea.

Another advantage, of course, is that you don't necessarily have to tie your full real life identity to your social identity. This allows people to be freer about what they can say or do, and might be more appealing.[a]

-----

[a] Yes, an argument can be made that attaching one's RL name to a post makes abuse less likely, but I believe that effective moderation of a community is a much stronger factor in having a quality community than simply requiring real names. I've seen places on the Internet where people were happy to flame using their full name and identity because of no moderators. On the other hand, HN is a good example of a civil online environment where real names are not required.

[18pfsmt]

My understanding with Zynga speculators is that the US may soon legalize online gambling and that Zynga is well-positioned to take advantage if that happens.

[ChuckMcM]

If someone is telling you that the US 'may soon legalize online gambling' then you are not listening to someone who understands US policy making. I expect that the US will legalize marijuana before they legalize gambling, and making pot legal is at least a decade away, maybe two.

The reasoning is two fold, first gambling is considered a 'sin' by many religions (which is why Las Vegas was sometimes called 'sin city') as was same sex marriage. There is a chance we will finally clear the way for same sex marriage after a decade of staunch resistance by religious interests, and if they 'lose' that fight they will certainly try to draw a line in the sand with gambling. These same interests have been trying over turn the right to privacy ruling which made abortion legal.

EDIT: add reasoning.

[demachina]

Uh, gambling is legal all over the U.S. now. There are casino's and off track betting all over the place, keno in bars, lotto tickets and scratchers in every convenience store and supermarket. Do you actually live in the U.S.?

The issue with online gambling is that in its previous form, when it was finally and fully outlawed in 2006, the Federal and state governments weren't getting their cut of the take and many people weren't reporting winnings to the IRS.

Its not especially a moral or religious issue now, its more a taxation and revenue issue. The House Financial Services Committee approved a bill to legalize online poker and some other forms of online gambling in 2009, it just hasn't made it all the way through Congress yet. I imagine there will be some Republicans opposed to it on religious grounds but once Congress figures out how to tax and regulate it and how much revenue they can rake in off it, it will be back.

[rprasad]

Types of gambling are legal all over the U.S.: betting on horse races, for historical reasons, and state/regional lotteries (which includes "scratchers").

Keno and other forms of gambling are legal only in Atlantic City and Nevada, for historical reasons. Gambling is not illegal in reservations but "indian" casinos are generally subject to approval by the federal government.

Congress has known for decades how to tax gambling revenues. They have simply chosen not to do so. Generally, the justification for not legalizing gambling nationwide is that the tax revenues raised from gambling activities is far outweighed by the increase in crime and decrease in properties values.

Congress chose to outlaw online gambling in 2006 as a result of many, many individuals developing chronic gambling addictions that destroyed their own lives and the lives of their families. The alternative was heavy regulation, but the casino industries (Vegas, Atlantic City, and various tribes) fought against it.

[abduhl]

This is just incorrect

Gambling is legal throughout the country to varying degrees in various forms. Black Hawk, Colorado has legalized gambling up to $100 per bet, for example.

[rprasad]

Gambling is illegal nationwide under federal law, except where specifically excepted. Horse races, Nevada, and Atlantic City are specifically excluded from the gambling prohibition, and indian reservations do not fall under federal jurisdiction. Sports-gambling is also illegal nationwide, except that bets may be placed anywhere to Atlantic City or Nevada sportsbooks (and for this reason, almost all sportsbooks are located in Nevada).

If gambling is going on in Black Hawk, CO, it is not "gambling" within the legal definition of the term or it is not legal. Alternatively, it may simply be an office for a (legal) sports-book operation that operates out of Nevada. Chances are, however, that it is not a legal operation and simply does not do enough business to warrant federal resources.

[jacoblyles]

The idea of marriage as a sacred rite and institution is far more universal and fundamental to Christianity than prohibitions on gambling. I don't think your model of Christianity is very good.

[joezydeco]

Illinois now lets you purchase lottery tickets (including the multistate Mega Millions and Powerball games) over the net using a credit card.

One step at a time. And only a matter of time before the 72 hour lottery pool morphs into millisecond real time gambling.

[veyron]

If US really legalizes online gambling Zynga is not the best play. IMHO MGM Resorts (MGM) or Las Vegas Sands (LVS) are better plays if you are bullish.