Talk:Pot Farm

Sources

• https://www.adweek.com/digital/pot-farm-review/
• https://www.gamespot.com/articles/weed-in-games-how-pot-stopped-being-a-video-games-/1100-6472423/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Just in case you're interested. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pot Farm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested some expansion for this article, so please read the full review before making changes, as notes under Breadth and focus may address earlier points. (Sorry if it's a little confusing, but I came across some points while checking references and others while looking for new sources.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead might need some tweaking after expansion

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A couple small points need sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Would like to see a little expansion

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This should pass GA with a little work. Pass GA!

Review comments

Prose

• The game is similar to I feel that on first mention in the body, the title of the game should be used: Pot Farm is a game similar to
• tracked by your character level We shouldn't address the reader directly; strike your or replace with the player's.
• the more different seeds they can grow more different is a little ambiguous: it could mean seeds with greater differences or a greater number of different seeds. Suggest: the more types of seeds they can grow (or similar)
  • and upgrades they can make to the farm. Just for consistency with the subject, I think: and upgrades they can make to their farm.
• The game's secondary currency, potbucks, are earned by gaining levels, planting rare seeds, and from earning achievements; they can be bought with real currency through microtransactions. I think: they can also be bought with real currency
• produced 420 rally kits Could this be changed to 4:20 so that there isn't confusion with it being the number of kits produced?
• I feel like the Development section could be retitled Development and release, given its contents.
• This game had about 71,924 monthly active users in 2011 Could you either remove the about or make it "about 72,000"? The number seems too specific to be preceded with "about".
• but with stoners as the mafia Could you change as to "in place of" or "replacing" or somesuch?
• Some longish quotes but not excessive.
• I changed the infobox to mdy dates for consistency (md makes more sense with 420) but I don't mind changing to dmy dates if you prefer.

Referencing & verifiability

• ":2" herb.co
  • verified cited material and quotations. Be careful not to quote any more from this source as it's right at the 10% fair-use rule-of-thumb.
• ":1" Guru Steve "Pot Farm Info" (archive)
  • This looks like more of a fan site than a reliable source. I couldn't actually view the site itself but I could view the archive. I would tend to recommend moving this to External links and not using it as a reference. Some of the information cited to it may be generally verifiable and not require an inline citation. There are a few places it would be preferable to add a citation to a reliable source:
  • developed by Brain Warp Studios and sold to East Side Games in 2010. Brain Warp is only mentioned in the lead and infobox; if better sourcing can be found, it'd be nice to add a bit about this in Development.
    • Brain Warp is mentioned in the Pete Davidson review in Adweek. (more below)
  • The Facebook version of the game shut down in December 2019. Should be another source for this.  Confirmed citation added to Facebook, sufficient for simple verification
  • Most of the game's revenue comes from the subscription service offered to its players. The EBE $150k ref covers it, if you could add a citation to that.
• Google Play
  • I think this is considered a primary source, but it isn't being used for anything controversial. However, it seems to be talking about the current Bud Farm:Grass Roots rather than the original game.
  • The Adobe Flash app (which is only mentioned in the article lead) isn't verified by the citation.
• ":0" NBC News
  • verified five citations and quotes
• ":3" MMOS games
  • verified three citations and quotations
  • The title I see for this webpage is "Facebook MMO Pot Farm Review"
  • saying that "in short, Pot Farm is Farmville but a lot cooler, [and] I was pleasantly surprised upon entering Pot Farm, upon realising it was far less gimmicky and more in-depth than Farmville." How would you feel about shortening this and adding a bit more at the end: saying that "Pot Farm is Farmville but a lot cooler [...] far less gimmicky and more in-depth" and that it was "the best game of its genre on Facebook".
• ":4" Gamespot
  • verified three citations and quotes
  • In 2020, GameSpot compared Pot Farm to the history of cannabis in video games How about: GameSpot noted the game's place in the history of cannabis in video games
• East Side Games (ESG) spoke to Canadian media in 2019 about the publishing of the game, saying that "ESG has always made their mark by doing something different and that's where the idea for cannabis-themed games was born. We wanted to build this community out of nothing. It was a great business opportunity because there wasn't a market for it, and very few other games in that space." This verifies to the GameSpot source, but I was curious because it seemed to me that "the idea" for the game should originate from the developers, Brain Warp Studios (unless maybe ESG came up with the idea and then contracted BWS to develop it). I took a look at the source GameSpot is referencing (link) and this quote isn't from an ESG employee but from a LRDLY representative. LRDLY is described as a sister-company of ESG, which took over all the cannabis-themed games and moved those projects from Vancouver to studios in Nanaimo, BC. It might be worth a mention about that (see below). I also noted that the Google Play webpage lists LRDLY as the developer of Bud Farm:Grass Roots.
• Rally (archive)
  • Verified, from primary source.
• Adweek Pete Davidson Review 14 June 2012
  • verified one citation
  • This source mentions Brain Warp Studios.
• ":5" East Bay Express "Nears 500,000 Growers" May 2010
  • verified two citations
• Boardgame
  • The website says that it's updated by its userbase, and it's unclear how much editorial checking is done. But the website is used in over a thousand articles, so it's probably good for simple verification of the board game's existence and the year it was published.
• Kickstarter
• Red Carpet Report
• East Bay Express "$150k" December 2010 (now named ":7")
  • This source also says that the game was "about to pass 1.5 million monthly users", and notes a Facebook "user score of 4.8 out of 5 possible points, based on 107,006 reviews." user score added
  • It also notes "the game doesn't actually depict anyone ever smoking the plant" if there's a place for that under the 'controversy'.
• Kotaku
• Fox News
• Canadian Video Game Awards

Additional sources from expansion:

• ":6" Adweek "Pot Farm Creators Net Angel Funding" 2 citations
• ":8" Douglas Magazine 3 citations
• Victoria Buzz ([1]
• Adweek $800 worth of marketing (link)

Breadth & focus

I would like to see some expansion, primarily regarding the companies and the marketing of the game (development would be nice too, but I don't know that there are any sources... it seems to have been initially developed by a couple coders who were keeping a low profile).

I've been reading a bit more and it seems like East Side Games came about because of the success/potential of Pot Farm. A story in Adweek in 2011 discusses the formation of Eastside Games by the Pot Farm creators, with angel investment from one of the first companies "to explore the monetization of virtual goods in social games" on Facebook. I think there's something there for expansion in the article. url=https://www.adweek.com/digital/eastside-games-pot-farm-zombinis/ |title=Super Rewards Founder, Pot Farm Creators Net Angel Funding for New Social Game Studio |first=A. J. |last=Glasser |date=July 28, 2011 |access-date=May 11, 2020 |website=Adweek Done

Maybe you could work in that East Side Games is a Vancouver-based company. (ref ":4" and others) I think that might help a bit, as ESG doesn't have its own article (and Cannabis culture is fairly strong in British Columbia).

The bit about the 420 rally kit, that's a guerrilla marketing campaign and at first I was going to recommend deleting that one-sentence paragraph as non-notable. However, I came across this Adweek story which talks about how they couldn't advertise a cannabis-related game on Facebook (or just about anywhere else) and had to use viral marketing. I think you could use that for a couple sentences, and then follow with the 420 rally kit as an example. url=https://www.adweek.com/digital/east-side-games-grew-a-massive-facebook-hit-with-800-worth-of-marketing/ |title=East Side Games grew a massive Facebook hit with $800 worth of marketing |first=Mike |last=Thompson |date=July 10, 2012 |access-date=May 11, 2020 |website=Adweek Done

Also from Adweek is this May 2010 interview (link) with an employee who responds as a Pot Farm character. So not the development details I might have hoped for, but he talks a tiny bit about the protection mechanic as an alternative to the wither mechanic of other farming games.

The second East Bay Express article (link) also comments on that interview, in which the developers wouldn't give their real names but used the "Uncle Floyd" persona, and comments on Facebook policy (of the time) which left them in a "legal gray area".

Reference ":2" had a couple other tidbits:

• the game earned East Side Games a spot among Pocket Gamer's Top 10 Mobile Game Developers to Watch.
• the dedicated audience followed the game from its web-based Facebook platform to mobile

Media

Three images with fair use rationales.

Last few things (some optional)

• For Adweek, if you can't load the pages off their site maybe you can load the archived versions. The one thing you might not have seen was this from the Davison review (archive link):

  The twist on the basic farming game formula is the fact that some of the fictional in-game crops are more illegal than others. Planting an illegal crop negatively impacts the player’s “protection” rating. If this stat drops to and remains at zero, the local park ranger will show up and confiscate the illegal plants if the player does not harvest them quickly enough. Since the illegal plants typically yield higher profits than the legal ones, players are encouraged to take this risk in order to build up their finances. Players may also build various structures to increase their protection, however, ranging from legal crops such as hops and corn to fir trees blocking the operation from prying eyes, angry bears and, oddly, inflatable sheep.

  And from another Adweek piece by Neil Vidvarthi (archive link):

  Uncle Floyd: We also have this protection mechanic that's different than the usual withering mechanic. In Pot Farm your crops never die, but if you grow certain plants without making sure they’re protected, you might get busted by Ranger Dick! This lets players choose how much risk they want to take on; if they buy enough protection, they never have to worry about that mean old Dick. Groovy, man.

  I was thinking these might be used to lead into the last paragraph of Gameplay, giving it a little more context in its genre. Something like: While most other farming games have a "withering" mechanic which causes untended crops to lose their value, Pot Farm has a "protection level" for its crops. In the Facebook game, if crops are not balanced with guards and other protection-enhancing items, there is a risk of a character called Ranger Dick appearing and confiscating stash and crops. Confirmed

• giving wacky responses I think I have to recommend removing that for tone, which is a shame.
• restricted to players over the age of 21. I think: restricted to players 21 and older.
• I think the lead could probably be expanded a bit, though kept to two paragraphs for the size of the article. How about, from the end of the second paragraph: Although the game could not be advertised online due to its content, it gained popularity through word-of-mouth and guerrilla marketing, and formed one of the world's largest cannabis-culture communities. The game was generally well received by critics and was nominated for Best Social/Casual Game at the Canadian Videogame Awards.

General discussion

Interesting read, it hits notability points in a few regards and is a nice little article. I feel that it'd be a solid GA with a little additional work as noted above. If you want to discuss any of this, please feel free to do so here or above. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thanks for the in-depth review (again)! I think I've done everything: I only got previews of the Adweek articles after the first one, there seems to be a subscription thing, but I've used as much as I could see. (Also, re. the Adobe Flash app, this was just saying that the Facebook version ran on Adobe Flash, as most Facebook apps do - and why most are really slow now - I've removed it) Kingsif (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Terrific work on the expansion! I left a couple more notes above (Last few things) with archive links to Adweek (if that's any better), and for the article lead. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Those archive links work great! I've basically just done what you've said, thanks for the effort, again. Kingsif (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(@Reidgreg: - forgot the ping) Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, verified your changes, all looks good. Passing GA! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)