snood

[papillon]

Haven't seen this mentioned here yet (my apologies if I missed it)

http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/01/31/1449223.shtml?tid=208&tid=202

The slashdot discussion on an article about the Snood guy. Full of the expected "Wow, this is the only shareware I've ever paid for!" and "WTF? This is just a ripoff of puzzle bobble! Why is he writing a whole paragraph about how he invented this concept?!?" comments you know and love. :)

[Anthony Flack]

I'm not surprised the slashdotters have taken offense. A great big article praising the creative genuis who came up with Snood, without ever mentioning that it's a clone, and a crappily made one at that. That's not just an oversight - it's downright crooked.

Okay, so he made a fortune off it. Lucky. He'd be struggling to sell a single copy if it was released today.

And sure, that might not be an original sentiment, but it's still the goddamn truth, and (not surprisingly), I take offense at that article. Genius my eye - he's a lucky shmuck barely capable of making games (what's he made since?), and there are any number of people on this forum more capable and talented than he, who will never receive a fraction of the recognition.

[Raptisoft]

Wow... I'm kinda amazed that nowhere in the article does he say anything like "I saw a similar game," etc. I mean, I'm the first to admit that Dynomite is just a Puzzle Bobble clone.

Anthony: He's made Snood Towers since. I think he totally invented that concept without any help from anyone whatsoever also. ;)

[BongPig]

I lean toward what Anthony said.

.. but thinking about it, Puzzle Bobble came out around 1997.
The article claims Snood is nearly a decade old?

Can any of us say for certain Snood is a copy of Puzzle Bobble?
... or is it, in fact, the other way around?! :confused:

[Raptisoft]

Puzzle Bobble was '94.

And there was some other precursor (Magic Bubbles? Bubble Magic? Anyone know?) that came out in 93.

[BongPig]

Was it as far back as 94? If so, then thats a bit clearer.
Still very close though.

[Raptisoft]

Well. If Snood took more than two months to write from start to finish, I would believe the person had never touched a computer the day before he started coding.

My first version of Eggsucker (Dynomite precursor) was done in January 1997-- 3 months after my wife first encountered Puzzle Bobble in the arcade-- 3D rendered graphics and all (at this time, I didn't know Snood existed. When I found Snood, while trying to figure out a way to sell Eggsucker online, I dropped Eggsucker because I felt that everyone and his brother was going to put out a Puzzle Bobble clone soon. So I just kept it for myself and didn't do anything with it. The stupidest business decision I've ever made in my life, BTW, if anyone should ever ask you).


and there are any number of people on this forum more capable and talented than he, who will never receive a fraction of the recognition.

Well... knowing your limits, and designing under them so that you actually release something also is a talent. I knock the guy's artwork and color sense-- I can barely look at Snood-- but I have to give him credit: He saw, he stalked, he pounced, he ate.

[Anthony Flack]

Hey, I release things too! Occasionally.

[Raptisoft]

Hey, I release things too! Occasionally.

Dude, most of us are PANTING for Cletus Clay, when is that coming out!!!?!?

[george]

do i sense a little jealousy here ... ;-)

it's an ok game. nothing spectacular. it is a bit amatuerish. when i first heard about snood, someone told me that i had to download the game and it was so fun. when i played it, i was like "wtf is this?" (expecting it to be something else other than an average puzzle bobble clone).

but that is no reason to put down the guy. he was at the right place at the right time. it's not a bad game for an indie. sure, it's ok to put down the article i guess.

[Raptisoft]

do i sense a little jealousy here ... ;-)

TREMENDOUS jealousy, from me at least. :)

But I, at least, take issue with the article. To credit this guy with the invention of the idea is some of the sloppiest reporting I've ever seen.

Ah well... whenever I read the newspapers about something I know about, I see that the newspapers know nothing at all, and are mostly wrong, slightly right, in every article. The real wonder is that I still trust newspapers about things that I DON'T know anything about.

[george]

BTW, I see the author is a girl. The person who told me about the game was also a girl. heh.

[EpicBoy]

My first experience with Snood was sorting the game downloads on Download.com and seeing Snood comfortably sitting at the top. At this point in time, it rules the Puzzles category by over 2,000,000 downloads (yes, 2 million).

I was in shock. I was in even more shock when I downloaded it and saw what it was...

[Hamumu]

The shock for me was when I saw the GBA version at Costco!

[GBGames]

The author's reply: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137855&cid=11540259

Anyway, I remember getting upset that people thought the game was so cool in the dorms. "Guys, it's just a cheap looking version of Puzzle-Bobble" I would say, but you can't download that. I was amazed that EVERYONE was playing it. I mean, even girls who normally wince when they see their boyfriends playing anygame were actually playing a game themselves, and with no coaxing from anyone. If anything, this game introduced people to shareware.

[Raptisoft]

Well, that's a well thought out and sensible reply, and makes me feel ashamed now. I certainly cannot fault any program that they use in children's hospitals.

But, Author of Snood... if you're reading this... I volunteer to redraw your Snoods for you, and a background... for FREE. :)

[mahlzeit]

For what it's worth: Snood is definitely one of the better indie games I have ever played. It doesn't look like much, but it is a lot of fun to play, even if it is hardly original. It just has something that many other indie games miss. The typical indie game demo I put down after a few minutes -- the Snood demo I was playing for hours and hours. Take from that what you will, but in my opinion Snood doesn't suck as much as many game developers want you to believe. :)

[BantamCityGames]

I don't think Snood sucks at all. As far as the graphics, yeah they're not really comparable to popcap and such but hey, I thought that South Park was pathetically drawn and animated too... until I realized that it actually added to the entertainment value instead of taking away from it. Snood was one of the games that got me into "casual" game development. I always had pipe dreams of making the next big FPS, but had neither the time, knowledge, or resources at the time... then I came across Snood and read a few articles about it and I was like, "Wow, You can make money from small downloadable games?"

[Ricardo C]

Chastising Snood and its maker for being a clone is silly. Derelict could be described as "Gauntlet on steroids and crack", but that doesn't make it any less fun, or less deserving of the money it makes. Puppytron. Big Kahuna Reef. Jewel Quest. If you can take an existing concept, put your own spin on it, and profit, what's the problem?

...Said the guy remaking another classic game :o

[Anthony Flack]

For what it's worth: Snood is definitely one of the better indie games I have ever played. It doesn't look like much, but it is a lot of fun to play, even if it is hardly original.


If you start with a concept that was a well-designed, fun game to start with, it's not surprising you'll have an edge over those who are actually working on their own games.

Even though my own views on cloning have been gone over ad nauseum (lit. "until sick" :p ), my main problem with the article was the way it painted the guy as a creative genius, glossing over (er, with the aforementioned paint) that the game was not an original concept. It even goes over how he "thought up" the idea without any mention of its true origins.

[Anthony Flack]

And a further thought... not that I want to really get into this again right now, and I'm sure nobody else does either, but...

If you took 5 different developers, and challenged them each to make a "Gauntlet on steroids", you'd end up with 5 very different games I bet. However, if you took the same 5 developers, and challenged them to make "Puzzle Bobble with no time limits", you'd get 5 Snoods, essentially.

[KNau]

Ah, Snood. The game that disproves every single theory about shareware development and sales:

1) Originally packaged with annoying adware.
2) Atrociously ugly and unintuitive website.
3) Derivitive gameplay with mediocre (at best) graphics.
4) Armies of gamers posting publicly about how lame it is.

And the game is a hit, lol. Goes to show how we may be overthinking this games business.

[Anthony Flack]

Nah, just put it down to the internet's ability to occasionally conjure up an "all your base are belong to us" phenomenon from nowhere.

[papillon]

It wasn't *originally* packaged with annoying adware. It was around on the mac for a long time before going to PC and even the original PC version didn't have ads in it. And had a decent-sized established fanbase before ever hitting the PC.

(I was spending a lot of time in a Mac lab at the time, downloading only what free Mac games I could find. Snood was the best of the lot. I'd never heard of Puzzle Bobble, so I just thought it was brilliant and installed it all over the school... :) )

[EpicBoy]

And the game is a hit, lol. Goes to show how we may be overthinking this games business.
Every rule has an exception that proves it.

[Anthony Flack]

As long as you are aware that "proves", in the context of that well-known expression, means "tests".

[EpicBoy]

You know what I'm saying. For every rule, someone can name an exception. It doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply in the vast majority of cases.

[george]

Originally packaged with annoying adware.

a lot of software at that time came with adware, and it was acceptable at that time. it was harmless, though annoying...


so I just thought it was brilliant and installed it all over the school

like i said, the person who told me about this "great" game was a girl also. have you noticed that a lot of girls like loser guys (no offense)... coincidence?


Atrociously ugly and unintuitive website

website is pretty good now. do you realize he did so much with this one game, and without giving up rights to it? he has it on the portals, has it on the gameboy, has it on all the handhelds, and still sells it as shareware? that's pretty cool, and smart business.

[illume]

I love this quote from the snood author:

'1) I wrote the thing primarily for my wife to play, since she never went to arcades.'

His game was made with love! No wonder lots of people like it.

He was probably very perceptive of his wife as she was playing it, and he was making it.

[Raptisoft]

I love this quote from the snood author:

'1) I wrote the thing primarily for my wife to play, since she never went to arcades.'

His game was made with love! No wonder lots of people like it.

He was probably very perceptive of his wife as she was playing it, and he was making it.

Haha, probably true! I did Eggsucker/Dynomite for my wife, and it sold like hotcakes. Hamsterball we did kinda for fun, and it sells like some other, less appealing, kind of cake. But the next one is designed around my wife again, so I'll keep you posted. :)

[tentons]

I'm not surprised the slashdotters have taken offense.
Let's be honest. When are slashdotters not offended? I personally think slashdot is mobbed by social idiots that I have no respect for.


A great big article praising the creative genuis who came up with Snood, without ever mentioning that it's a clone, and a crappily made one at that. That's not just an oversight - it's downright crooked.
Hogwash. I don't see how this even matters.

Everyone's having a great time slamming the game without mentioning anything good about it, but he's laughing all the way to the bank. I'd rather find wisdom in the story than be bitter about his game being similar to another game. Who cares? This is such a "Jerry Springer" attitude, and it ignores all the things in the story that you could learn from. Unless you've got several million in the bank from your games, maybe you could learn something from him.

[Hamumu]

Good news for me, my next game is NAMED after my wife, and the main character is sort of her! She was kind of offended that the main character was short and pudgy though. I had to explain that's how Hamumu works.

[Yossarian]

**starts planning a game where you play as the patriarichal leader of a household, and you direct your husband around the house to do the chores, which he does while smiling and saying "I love you" 100 times, and the kids listen to everything you say, and the dishes do themselves, and the dog walks itself and poops in the toilet***

My wife should have a lot of fun with that one ;)

[ddobson]

Hi, everybody. Dave Dobson here, referred by Tom of Pretty Good Solitaire. I wasn't aware this forum existed, but it seems pretty neat, and the discussion is interesting. I won't rehash what I said on slashdot, which a previous poster linked, and I think it'll stand as my response to the "you're not original" and "you posted adware" themes here.

I have written a number of other games, some released, some not, with Centaurian, Snood Towers, What's New, and Chowder being the more widely released ones (Chowder's still in beta). I teach geology full-time at Guilford College in Greensboro, NC, so I don't spend all of my time programming. The two months for Snood was two months when I was also working on my Ph.D., so the time spent on Snood was all nights and weekends, not continuous work. Anybody who thinks these projects are really really short (i.e. I could make that in a week) hasn't ever really tried to put the finishing touches on - help screens, interface, preference menus, documentation, registration system, trying to get the program to work right on computers other than yours, etc. The game writing, the fun part, takes only about 10% of the time the project will take.

I've never worked with anybody for a finished product other than getting some of the artwork for What's New, which explains the crude art, sounds, and music - all my own, and nobody's ever accused me of being a gifted artist :-)

Thanks to those who made constructive comments. An interesting forum, to be sure.

Sincerely,
Dave

[Anthony Flack]

Hi Dave,

Obviously, you didn't write the article, but I'm wondering if you didn't find it a little weird that an article about the creation of Snood didn't mention the game it was based on?

[george]

Dave, you forgot to mention the fact that you are 1000 times more successful than 99.9% of the people here, and all in your spare time ;-)

[Armsfeld]

I wonder if his success has something to do with his manners and good tact?

[Omega]

Tact and ethics are two different things. The article is what the people have a problem with. I think Snood is great. It's that the article infers that you told the 'reporter' that it was original, is what people find sick and disturbing. It's not just misleading, it is false. It is a lie. Most people couldn't care less that somebody 'clones' someone else's program. But, lying to reporters about your program is misleading, and deceiving, and unethical.

[mahlzeit]

It wouldn't be the first time a reporter twisted the facts and quotes just to get a good story...

Edit: This doesn't mean all reporters are scum. There is often an impedance mismatch between interviewer and interviewee. I think reporters often pull things out of context because they are not aware of the context in the first place. And the interviewee's enthousiasm often makes things appear larger than they really are.

[Jim Buck]

Is it possible that he didn't play every game on earth ever created so that when he wrote his game, he assumed it was original since he wasn't aware of other similar games?

(Note, I don't know much about Snood or its development, so perhaps he has already explicitly stated elsewhere outside of this interview that he based on it something else.)

[ddobson]

I never lied to the reporter; I think I even said to her that Snood was based on some other arcade games I'd seen, which is what I've told every other reporter who's asked me about the game's design. I've never tried to hide that, which should be clear if you look for other interviews I've done.

Sincerely,
Dave

[Vectrex]

He has always said Snood is mostly just adding and changing a few idea's from an arcade game (presumably puzzle bobble). I'm sure he's as amazed as we are. I'm starting to think programmer art isn't so bad after all :D This is really just a prime example of being first and getting a foot hold. Mac users wouldn't have ever seen that game so he was simply the first to clone a great game for a new market and it worked. So you'd be hard pushed to pull it off today.
Goes to show how insanely loyal your customers can be if you treat them right. I mean he's still selling it like 8 years on and no doubt mostly from word of mouth from the original mac customers.

edit: heh I wouldn't worry much about people on the internet. It's like one massive tabloid newspaper taking everything utterly out of context and announcing it on every forum. This is exactly what it's like to be a politician (my dad was one), you simply can't win em all :rolleyes:

[Armsfeld]

Who cares if she "overreported" his story? Aren't we all a little too old to be resentful of another's success?

A gracious attitude is more practical, as shown by Dave and those looking for factors of his success (treating people right, designing for somebody).

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Dunno if anyone else has heard this, and I don't know how public it is, but I guess the rights for Snood are now owned (or maybe just licensed) by a big Seattle casual gaming company. (no, it's not popcap.) Last I heard, said company was looking to code an updated versions, because deservedly or not, the franchise name has power....

-Hiro_Antagonist

[EpicBoy]

Last I heard, said company was looking to code an updated versions, because deservedly or not, the franchise name has power....
"had" power. If he's sold the IP, it no longer has any value for him. Shame really if that's true...

[Dan MacDonald]

but I guess the rights for Snood are now owned (or maybe just licensed) by a big Seattle casual gaming company.


Ooooh, let's see... who likes to buy stuff, oh yeah, didn't Real Arcade buy Gamehouse for 35M? :P

[Hiro_Antagonist]

hah, yup, but it's not them either.

It may actually be the biggest casual gaming company you've never heard of. Or if you have, you follow things pretty closely... =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Raptisoft]

hah, yup, but it's not them either.

It may actually be the biggest casual gaming company you've never heard of. Or if you have, you follow things pretty closely... =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

C'mon, who is it? Grab.com? Pogo? BigFish?

[Dan MacDonald]

Wow, interesting. I know whe have a lot of local casual companies, HipSoft, Full Armor, sprout, even Humongous to some extent.. I can't think of a single one that would really go for buying the "Snood" brand... You've got me curious :)


Msft has the MSN gaming zone which is pretty huge... however I can't see them buying snood rights either.

[JPGinLA]

Not true. No Seattle company. Read the Article:

"A year or two after the game came out, Jeff Grogin, a California lawyer who specializes in business transactions and intellectual property issues, caught the Snood bug through his brother. He was enthralled with playing the game, but also saw in the Snoods' smirking faces almost endless merchandising possibilities. He tracked Dobson down in Greensboro and began leaving phone messages.

Months later, Dobson finally took one of his calls and considered Grogin's proposition. He won't say how much, but Grogin paid Dobson a licensing fee for use of the Snoods' images and began putting them on clothing, coffee mugs, key chains, baseball caps, bumper stickers. Later, Dobson became a partner in the company, called Word of Mouse Games, which now employs a handful of people in Calabasas, Calif., who oversee manufacturing and shipping. The items are available through Snood.com."

BTW, we do think we are the biggest game company you never heard of!

-JPG

[Bluecat]

Aren't Microsoft releasing some casual games on the XBox? Is that who you are referring to?

[Dan MacDonald]

HaHa congrats JPG :) thanks for the post!

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Haha... Well, the company I was referring to is Oberon.

Like nearly all established casual games companies, they're located in Seattle, and they have some amazing people (David Nixon, the Tams) working for them. I initially learned about them through social relationships, but after having a chat w/ someone over there about possibly publishing my game and then keeping an eye on them for a while, I kept finding myself astounded at how much they do even though their name is virtually unknown to most people.

For example, I'd been told that Microsoft no longer administers the MSN Gaming Zone themselves. I believe they've outsourced the running of that to Oberon. (You may notice Oberon logos around everywhere now -- For example, http://zone.msn.com/en/root/deluxe.htm?code=11011713&genre=Arcade doesn't even have PopCap's name on it, but it does have Oberon's name several times...)

They also have some successful/emerging 1st-party licenses (Inspector Parker is their biggest, I believe) and business deals of various sorts with nearly every player of significance in the industry.

-Hiro_Antagonist

[JPGinLA]

Hiro Good luck to you with your Oberon relationship! ;)

Oberon neither owns nor licenses Snood!

I'd love to know with whom you have a relationship (if you care to share). Do Dave and Jessica frequent this board?

-JPG

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Actually -- publishing through Oberon was a discussion we had in the past, but it was mutually agreed that for a few reasons, our game wasn't as applicable for the casual games market as we all would have hoped. But over the course of that discussion, it became clear to me they have their act together far more than many/most players in the industry.

I've talked to David and Jessica, but don't know either of them well at all. I seem to recall David posting on here once upon a time, but I have no idea if he reads regularly or not. Basically, I'm just aware enough of their work to know they're worthy of respect -- at least mine. ;-) As for my personal friends... well... that's personal. =)

I must have misunderstood the Snood licensing thing then -- my sincerest apologies. In retrospect, it was gossip pure and simple, but I'd heard it from a reputable source who I thought should know.... Lesson learned though. =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[JPGinLA]

Thanks Hiro. I just found these boards and I've enjoyed reading them today. I've spent too much time already but its quite useful and entertaining (I'm up to the office space photos on another forum!).

I'm not a programmer, but I wish I were! I think I was born too long ago. When I was in college we used punch cards.

I'll try to keep reading and post when my experience might be useful to others and contribute as best I can.

-JPG

[Dan MacDonald]

I think the biggest thing Oberon has to offer Indie's is access to XArcade and other consoles. I know a few developers who are working on XArcade titles who have gone through oberon and I've herd good things for the most part.

(They do administar MSN Gaming zone for msft and catalogs of other casual sites around the web)

[Anthony Flack]

I never lied to the reporter; I think I even said to her that Snood was based on some other arcade games I'd seen, which is what I've told every other reporter who's asked me about the game's design. I've never tried to hide that, which should be clear if you look for other interviews I've done.


Nevertheless, it is the lack of acknowlegdement in the review that has annoyed people more than anything. And while I was happy to attribute this entirely to the reporter, "I think I even said to her that Snood was based on some other arcade games I'd seen" is quite remarkably vague, all things considered.

More than this, I am again amazed at the attitudes of some people around here. It's got nothing to do with resentment, for goodness' sakes! I've always maintained that game design is by far the most difficult and most important aspect of game development, and deserves so be treated with the upmost respect. While people here will jump up and down at the impropriety of sampling and manipulating an image or a sound from somewhere else to create something new, it seems to be accepted by most that the wholesale lifting of someone else's game design is perfectly acceptable.

I'm all for the idea of building on the past to create new things. I can even accept that Snood does this to an extent; it does offer a twist or two to the basic premise. But it's still clearly 95% clone, and I would consider it unethical to charge money for such a derivative work.

Of course, I can't expect everyone else to share this view. I don't expect Dave to give that money back either. And I guess it was a practice that was widely accepted at the time, and (much to my dismay) still is now. But to frame this as resentment or jealously is a gross misrepresentation. I've made my feelings about this clear time and time again, about both successful and obscure products. If you want get all silly and suck-upy because the Snood author has shown up, then fine, but I'll not be a hypocrite.

As far as learning from the success of Snood goes (and it appears some of you are quite giddy about its success) - well, I'd say that it can be attributed largely to 3 things:

* It was based on a game that was already very good
* It was made more accessible to the casual player
* It was released at a time when there was very little competition.

The first is obviously a recipe for success, even now, but you know what I think about that. The second is also a sound move, but then we already knew that. And the third - equally important - factor is something we can't do anything about. So what is it we're supposed to learn, exactly?

[JPGinLA]

Hi all! I've now read (or skimmed) all the threads on these forums and already have learned a lot and also feel like I know quite a bit about each of you! Nice to meet you and I wish I lived in Washington so I could have pizza with some of you!

I look forward to reading and learning from others here and will post when I can share what I have learned or know to be true.

I'm not a programmer and not a hard-core gamer. I love puzzle, trivia, word and solitaire games. I am a business man and a lawyer specializing in intellectual property, software and licensing issues. I have been involved in shareware publishing for several years through our company Word of Mouse Games. I think our strategy is a little different from most shareware as our secondary goal (the first being to sell games) is to publish properties with licensing potential. That is, we look for games which have "Brand" potential in conjunction with other merchandise, media and platforms. Without a doubt the most succesful game we publish is Snood. If you ask, I'll gladly list the incredible history of this game.

Dave doesn't need or ask me to do his bidding on these forums, but I've got to speak up in this community to "Stop the Insanity" of the likes of Anthony Flack. I'm sure you are a swell person and we'd get along at a pizza night, but you are so far off the mark in your ethical and other criticisms. I will do my best to address the issues you raise:

1. You're critical that Dave didn't forcefully tell the newspaper reporter that he was influenced by other games when he wrote Snood. Yikes! Dave said "I think I said . . ." and you are critical! Just read the article where he detailed his love of all computer games and every interview he's ever given acknowledging the many games he played and how those games together with games like darts, billiards and bowling played a role in his game design: specifically no time limit, aiming and strategy for future shots required. Its not that easy to remember everything you say to a reporter afterwards and I think you are being hypercritical to fault Dave for being cautious in his post. Let's see how you do when a reporter visits you with photographers to snap photos of your home and family!

2. Wholesale lifting, 95% clone, accepting money for such a derivative work. These are all basically the same point. Where do I begin? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but how can justify those opinions. What basis do you have for concluding that Snood is "clearly 95% clone," that Snood is a wholesale lift of someone else's work, and that an ethical line was crossed because money was accepted? These facts are not facts at all, just your rather uninformed opinion. And while we're discussing it, please let the others know what level of derivative work is acceptable so as to permit the acceptance of money. 75%, 50%, 25%? Believe it or not, all art, culture and science is derivative! Movies, novels, paintings, sculpture, and <drum roll> games! And, how is the derivative percentage to be computed? Is there an originality formula that you can share? There are an awful lot of Indie programmers on these boards selling clones and solitaire games. You need to let them know if they are ethical or not by accepting money for their games.The solitaire games are 100% derivative, aren't they?

3. Three attributes of Snood's success. It was based on a game that was already very good, It was made more accessible to the casual player, It was released at a time when there was very little competition. OMG! That is naive! Snood was created by a really smart and clever programmer to appeal to players. From the interface, to the easily identifiable characters, to the gameplay, to every other aspect of the game, Snood is an incredibly enjoyable experience to most users who try it! And to think it is succesful because there wasn't competition is about the silliest conclusion of all. Any facts to support that? Snood was released on Mac in 1996. Please let me know the ratio of users to shareware games and the various pricepoint comparisons at the time before you conclude there was no competition. And even if that conclusion is correct, please explain to me why anyone would play a game or tell their friends about a game that wasn't a good game back then or today?

4. What are you to learn? Thanks for asking! Here's what I tell others when they ask me: 1. Start with a good product. 2. Provide a really good free/demo experience, not just a tease or sales pitch. 3. Ask your user to become a customer and tell them what value they will receive for their money (don't just ask them to make the morally correct decision). 4. Ask your users and customers to tell their friends and make it easy for them to do just that. 5. Provide A+ customer service - we have telephone support M-F and email support every day of the year. 6. Make a product for every possible platfiorm. There's more but I'll get off my soapbox for now!

BTW, if any posters or lurkers have a great, family-friendly, casual game that you think is a good fit with the Word of Mouse Games family, then please let me know and maybe we can publish your game too!

-JPG

[Escotia]

What basis do you have for concluding that Snood is "clearly 95% clone,"

I'm guessing he's played Puzzle Bobble and then Snood. From your post I'm wondering if you have? It would take a blind man to say that they're not the same game. I'm not even sure that changing the balls to faces constitutes 5% difference.

That said, I don't agree with Anthony Flack. As you point out, at which point does it stop being unethical? Puzzle Bobble wasn't, and as far as I know isn't, available for Mac, so the Mac player's have gained a game they would not have had and Taito have not lost out.

[Dan MacDonald]

Heh, Anthony is our resident extreamist. He's also the creator of one of most successful games that members of these forums have produced. So we give him his soapbox from time to time.

I remember the first time I tried snood after hearing about it's success. I was amazed at how, lets call it "straight forward", the graphics were. Surpisingly I ended up playing it several times before moving on. I'm the type of guy who can't even tolerate a single round of bejewled so there is something bizzarely attractive/addictive about that game. Something that's not easy to put your finger on. It's definitly one of those games where the whole is more then the sum of its parts.

[goodsol]

It's amazing how those who aren't particularly successful rationalize about how someone got lucky, when it's clear luck had nothing to do with it.

I'd heard of Snood for years, of course, but only downloaded it and played it last weekend. It's simply a great game. Sure, it's got some technical problems, which I suspect have to do with it being a port from the Mac rather than being designed for Windows. I don't see the complaints about the graphics at all - the snoods are great little characters.

To get some feel for this type of game, I tried out the similar games from PopCap (Dynomite) and GameHouse (Pop and Drop). Since these are really successful companies you would expect their versions to be top notch and competitive with Snood. Incidently, I suppose PopCap and GameHouse are being unethical for charging for these games? I think they both cost more than Snood.

I was very disappointed with PopCap's Dynomite. While I'm sure that game developers probably think the graphics are good, I thought the graphics inferior to Snood. They are just little balls, nothing interesting about them. And they are really small (to be fair, I only played the online version, I would assume the balls are bigger in the download version). And the game isn't as fun as Snood, as the little bombs go off and knock stuff out for unexplained reasons. I much preferred the simplicity of Snood. I think that was the first PopCap game I've played that I felt was not really that great.

GameHouse's Pop and Drop played a little better, but again, all it has is little colored circles. They are not nearly as interesting and fun as the Snoods.

Neither PopCap's or GameHouse's game is a game that I would play for any length of time. Snood, on the other hand, could get addictive. And my wife was uninterested while I was playing the other games, but when I played Snood, she said she wanted that on her computer.

The idea that there was less competition in 1996 is, well, funny. The competition in 1996, certainly in my area, was intense. It was far greater than now, in terms of numbers of new competitors springing up.

To criticize someone because a reporter didn't mention something in a story shows a lack of experience with reporters. Reporters will put in what they want to put in and they have their own agendas with each story.

It's nice, though, to finally know who invented the side-scrolling shooter.

[luggage]

I think the remark regarding competition was meant in direct relation to Snood. There's plenty of Puzzle Bobble like games around now. Just like PopCap and Zuma - Zuma was quite an obscure arcade game but there wasn't really a game like it on the market.

I partially agree with Anthony about clones as well - just not quite as strongly. Taking a game idea, copying it, adding a lick of paint (or in Snood's case horrendous paint) and tacking on a minor feature just feels cheap.

By all means innovate, just don't replicate. Tetris was good, Columns was a variation, Puzzle Bobble was a variation on that. There's an evolution of the genre there - you don't get that with most of the clones we see.

Incidentally I much much prefer just boring round balls in Puzzle Bobble style games, they actually work to show you the layout. I find Snood's characters make it much harder to pick out what's going on.


It's nice, though, to finally know who invented the side-scrolling shooter.That's a bit of a lazy comment, if you think Anthony's point was every game should be a brand new genre then you've obviously misunderstood.

[Dan MacDonald]

Well, as I see it, the main issue here is that at one end you have the pure business perspective. Identify an untapped market, create a game that targets it, and then sell the hell out of it. On the other end of the perspective spectrum you have world changers. Make a totally new gameplay system that hasn't been seen before, make a game that is an artistic expression of the creator and create it for the sheer enjoyment of creating something from nothing. You could simplify it and put Pragmatist on one side and Dreamer on the other.

I think a lot of people fall somewhere in between. I'm always amazed at the number of indies I talk to who have an RPG idea in their back pocket and have a domain name reserved just in case they are ever in a situation where they could actually make it. Still they focus on creating simpler more achievable games that they think there is a market for. A lot of indies start with the dream or ideal of creating the games they always wanted to play, then they channel that energy and try to make products that they can sell.

It's no surprise to me that Anthony and Thomas might find themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum. Thomas, from a product standpoint, has created on of the best selling indie games of all time. Anthonys' game Platypus while not entirely original (he'll be the first to admit) has endeared itself to it's players for it's unique presentation and overall good design. There is no confusing a game made by Anthony with any one elses' games as they really are his own artistic expression and while it has been successful its nothing close to what pretty good solitaire has done.

Personally I'm sympathetic to both sides, some indies like the one who created snood or even Mike from blitwize created games that that they could enjoy with their families and ended up creating game that many people beyond their initial audience enjoy.

I think the key here is when you are listening to people comments is deciding where they fall on this spectrum, because the paradigms at both ends of the spectrum are fundamentally different. It's much easier to understand what someone is trying to communicate when you understand the basis of what or where what they are saying is coming from.

[Anthony Flack]

Well I'm happy to see others have pitched in here against some of the weaker arguments in the case against me.

I'm sure Dave is a good guy and there's nothing sinister about him. I'm also sure he's done nothing deliberately malicious in making Snood. But I do consider cloning for profit to be wrong and I'm allowed to say so. You might choose to interpret this as the insane ranting of an extremist, but when people do that it's usually a defensive reaction from those involved in game cloning at some level.

As to whether I find all the other examples of game clones unethical - well, yes, of course I do! Why would you think I wouldn't? I've talked about this many times before. I think it's the great shame of this industry. It's an act that's generally frowned upon in other self-respecting creative media.

Solitaire, long since in the public domain, is of course a very different thing to somebody else's recent commercial creation. That should be obvious enough. Working within a genre like side-scrolling shooters is also a very different proposition than doing a clone, and that should also be obvious enough.

As for what percentage clone is acceptable (as if I was setting up some kind of regulatory council to regulate this sort of thing mathematically, which of course I'm not) - I think taking 5% or whatever, here and there from different sources and combining them into something new is not only fine, it is how creativity generally works. But when you're taking most of your content directly from a single source, I have a problem with that.

But I don't need to define it scientifically. People know what a clone is. People know when they're making clones and when they aren't. The only question is how you feel about that.

[Mark Fassett]

Then - if no one is allowed to make clones - where am I to get my "same but different" gameplay desire filled? With lots of games, once you finish them, there's no real value in playing them again because you've seen all the content. If there aren't any clones, where am I, as a player, supposed to satisfy my thirst?

And if there are no clones allowed, why am I not then typing this on an IBM computer with an Intel chip?

And if there are no clones allowed, how is it possible for me to have tv's from three different manufacturers in my house?

If there are no clones around, why is it that all the fantasy novels on my shevles tell essentially the same story with different words?

Copying a game verbatim is wrong. Using the ideas in the game is not, as long as you restate them in your own words (code, art, music, etc...). What you want, Anthony, would leave the world barren of choice.

[svero]

IMHO dyno-mite is the best puzzle bobble clone on the market. Far far superior to just about anything out there. However I think Popcap actually did a poor job converting eggsucker. It was better the way Raptisoft originally released it in most respects.

Snood is an ok game, but I don't believe the success of Snood is directly related to the game itself, but rather a combination of things similar to what's been mentioned in this thread before. I don't believe that's rationalizing away someone's success. I think Myst for instance succeeded in part due to the new technology of CDRoms coming on the market around the time of it's release. Is that because I'm jealous of myst and want to rationalize why it was a huge game and I didn't have a similar success? Of course not.

I think Anothony is generally correct about clones. They are for the most part theft of ideas, and are to some degree unethical. However I think people who point out that all game work is derivitive and that it's difficult to define a line where a rip-off becomes ok are also correct. It's a grey line and for some people it will be further to one side than another. My game A Snake's Life is a Nibbler/Snake game clone to some extent, but I think I added "enough" that I felt ok about releasing the game. That it had some value of it's own. What category other games fall into will vary from person to person but I have a feeling that most of us know a rip off when we see it. And I suppose it goes without saying that there are good clones and bad clones in the sense that some people fail at copying. They miss the finer points. Or make changes that don't work.

[SunAndGames]

I think Myst for instance succeeded in part due to the new technology of CDRoms coming on the market around the time of it's release.

I've heard that one argued in reverse. That the success of CDRoms was driven by the incredible popularity of Myst.

[george]

But I do consider cloning for profit to be wrong and I'm allowed to say so.

he didn't clone for profit, he cloned for love ;-). i would probably do the same thing if my girlfriend/wife/loved one wanted a fun computer game that she/he couldn't find any where (remember he wrote this on the MAC way back).

[Anthony Flack]

he didn't clone for profit, he cloned for love

Don't be silly. It was released commercially. It was also adware bundled.

[george]

Don't be silly. It was released commercially. It was also adware bundled.

well... he created it first for his wife, and people liked it, so he then decided to sell it -- i see nothing wrong with that, if i had something lying around that i could make money from, i would probably do the same.

as for the adware, i agree, it isn't the best thing to do, but the author also regrets it. however, most adware back then wasn't too bad, and was somewhat acceptable. A LOT of reputable good programs came bundled with adware. of course, things have changed, now adware is just horrible garbage that totally ruins the computer, but back then it wasn't too bad.

but i understand your point...

[Anthony Flack]

well... he created it first for his wife, and people liked it, so he then decided to sell it -- i see nothing wrong with that, if i had something lying around that i could make money from, i would probably do the same.


Yes, except it was someone else's game. Releasing it commercially makes it cloning for profit, which was the point.

[ddobson]

Hey, all - I'm not going to wade into this any further, particularly in the face of people who post multiple times a day and think I suck. One correction, though - the adware was a bit more than one year out of nine of marketing the game, so don't think I did that the whole time.

However, there's no question of whether I "cloned" the business strategy I used - that I was making up as I went along, and I feel like I have a lot of advice about that to people who are just getting started with shareware and the like. I'm also a great fan of games, and would love to discuss anything about design.

Thanks again for the kind and constructive comments,
Sincerely,
Dave

[Anthony Flack]

You haven't waded into it at all. This cloning business wouldn't have annoyed me any more than it does when everyone else does it (and it seems a lot of people are quite happy to... and with whom I register my disappointment and then move on), but this evasiveness is something else.

I know you say you never claimed Snood was original. But you did claim Snood was inspired by various arcade games, and darts, and bowling, etc. when you know it was not. It was inspired, front to back, by one very specific game which you seem to take pains not to mention by name.

Anyway, I'm not surprised you don't want to wade into this as there appears to be thousands of other people out there in other parts of the internet who have all basically registered the same complaint.

I'm sure any insight you have to share about marketing or any other aspect of game development would be appreciated by the board members.

[KNau]

The word "clone" implies a near exact duplication of the original game.

While it's safe to say Snood was inspired by Puzzle Bobble, the author did make changes in the gameplay and graphics that would qualify it as a derivative work and not an outright copy. This is especially true given that this style of game has become a genre in itself.

I hate to use the "glass houses" argument but just because people can't point to a specific side scroller that may have influenced Platypus doesn't mean it is in any way an original game. Side scrollers have become a genre to themselves and you clearly borrowed all of the game concepts from that genre.

I guess the problem with Snood was that it was the first "copy" of Puzzle Bobble and if he had only waited for other people to copy the game before releasing his version it would have been less of a sin?

[Ricardo C]

Wait, wait, waaaaaait... Do you mean to tell me that Platypus is in fact NOT the very first side-scrolling shooter ever????? And that it may not be the first claymation game ever, either???? ;)

Anthony, for someone who's so vocal about the need to ovwerhaul copyright lawe in order to avoid the stifling of creative and artistic expression, you sure seem to hold a serious grudge against this game. I still fail to see the problem. If Dobson had nicked the idea from Taito before they could hit the market (what Nolan Bushnell did with Pong, essentially) and unfairly stole their potential market, then sure, some sour grapes would be in order. But attacking the guy for exploiting the Puzzle Bobble concept in a market that was not going to be serviced by Taito anytime soon? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe I'm bothered by your posts because 1) I'm admittedly working on agame that's inspired by a VERY VERY famous, classic game, there'll be no mistaking what game inspired me once you see it, and 2) another game I have dormant at the moment is not a clone of any one game, but it's based on a very popular genre in the console world, but that is drastically underserved in the PC world, and I think I could open up a new niche with it. Frankly, I don't think there is anything unethical about what I'm doing in either case. If someone can profit by building on what came before, or by exploiting a market others ignored, then more power to them.

EDITED to remove the "not illegally" part in the Pong reference, since Atari did lose a lawsuit to Magnavox over it.

[george]

However, there's no question of whether I "cloned" the business strategy I used - that I was making up as I went along, and I feel like I have a lot of advice about that to people who are just getting started with shareware and the like. I'm also a great fan of games, and would love to discuss anything about design.

Thanks again for the kind and constructive comments,
Sincerely,
Dave

any advice from a successful shareware author is not only appreciated, but is vital for many of us! oh please do share!!! not too many successful shareware authors post here, i suppose because they are too busy running their businesses. we would really appreciate any advice and discussion from you. thanks! :-)

[Triple_Fox]

Anthony, for someone who's so vocal about the need to ovwerhaul copyright lawe in order to avoid the stifling of creative and artistic expression, you sure seem to hold a serious grudge against this game.

I really don't think Anthony(despite his claims) is annoyed at the game so much as to its creator, since Dave hasn't ever(so far as I know) *directly* owned up to the game being a total clone. Instead he artfully dodges, making only a statement very close to that(see: "it was based on some arcade games") even though this is the sort of situation where more could be gained by simply being self-depreciating of his unoriginality. That was, after all, the issue over which Anthony first expressed his grievances.

I don't really mind that Dave does this, but I admit that it makes me think less of his character.

[Armsfeld]

I don't mean to keep you down, Anthony, you seem like a very nice fellow. But I'm afraid that your posts in this thread come off as if you have an axe to grind more than anything else. And not grinding in a friendly way.

:cool: I do, however, look forward to your posts on other threads.

[Ricardo C]

Triple Fox,

I do agree with that, but Anthony's earlier comment about it being unethical to profit from a clone rubbed me the wrong way. Yes, Dobson should own up to the chief inspiration behind Snood, but aside from that, I can't find fault with what he's done. This isn't Microsoft ripping off Apple while pretending to collaborate with them, it's just a guy who played a game in an arcade and saw an opportunity to exploit it in a different market.

[luggage]

Triple Fox,

I do agree with that, but Anthony's earlier comment about it being unethical to profit from a clone rubbed me the wrong way. Yes, Dobson should own up to the chief inspiration behind Snood, but aside from that, I can't find fault with what he's done. This isn't Microsoft ripping off Apple while pretending to collaborate with them, it's just a guy who played a game in an arcade and saw an opportunity to exploit it in a different market.
What's unethical for one person isn't for another. Some would think it's ethical to put adware in their games others wouldn't. Cloning feels a bit cheap to me.

And it's madness to say making a brand new game in a particular genre is the same as cloning a game. We all know a clone when we see one.


If someone can profit by building on what came before, or by exploiting a market others ignored, then more power to them. And this is from someone who dislikes Microsoft!

[Ricardo C]

What's unethical for one person isn't for another. Some would think it's ethical to put adware in their games others wouldn't. Cloning feels a bit cheap to me.

Putting adware in games is not unethical, as long as the end user is fully informed. It's also a very, very bone-headed move. But it's not unethical if nothing is hidden from the user.

(This is not an endorsement of ad/spyware, just a clarification of terms.)


And it's madness to say making a brand new game in a particular genre is the same as cloning a game. We all know a clone when we see one.

That's pretty much the same thing Anthony said. Sounds like obscenity laws. "I know it when I see it". Thanks for that very scientific measuring stick, guys.

But focusing on Snood, of course it's a clone. A freakishly ugly one, even (no disrespect meant, Dave, but dude...), but what makes it so much of an offender than other me-too games out there? Is it that Puzzle Bobble's gameplay is pretty distinctive and thus can be considered a genre unto itself? Well, boo-hoo. The first side scroller was a genre unto itself, too, until the copycats started appearing. And thank goodness they did, or what would we have today?


And this is from someone who dislikes Microsoft!

Exploiting a market isn't the same as illegally railroading your competition.

[luggage]

Putting adware in games is not unethical, as long as the end user is fully informed. It's also a very, very bone-headed move. But it's not unethical if nothing is hidden from the user.And that's my point, I feel it's unethical because it doesn't matter what someone puts in the EULA, or sticks next to the download link people will download it not knowing what they're going to get. Does it pop up a large screen with a warning sign telling the user their machine will more than likely be rendered unuseable? No. Ergo it unethical in my opinion.

That's pretty much the same thing Anthony said. Sounds like obscenity laws. "I know it when I see it". Thanks for that very scientific measuring stick, guys. The reason for that statement is that some on here have got confused between 'clone' and 'platypus'. Platypus clearly isn't a clone of a game. Snood clearly is.

But focusing on Snood, of course it's a clone. A freakishly ugly one, even (no disrespect meant, Dave, but dude...), but what makes it so much of an offender than other me-too games out there? Is it that Puzzle Bobble's gameplay is pretty distinctive and thus can be considered a genre unto itself? Well, boo-hoo. Because there doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement from the author that it's a clone for one. Because there's a difference between writing a game in a genre and cloning a game. There's a worms game which is in the Puzzle Bobble genre, at least it threw in a few extra twists.

The first side scroller was a genre unto itself, too, until the copycats started appearing. And thank goodness they did, or what would we have today?You're still missing the point. The 'copycats' refined and improved the gameplay. They didn't just copy it exactly and knock the graphics down a few levels. Just think what we'd have today if everyone took Snood's approach.

While I feel cloning a game is cheap, I don't mind so much if they innovate with it. It's the least they could do.


Exploiting a market isn't the same as illegally railroading your competition.You could argue that they exploited the free browser market. Or you could argue that Taito would have a harder time entering the Mac Puzzle Bobble market after that. Anyway, this is in danger of derailing the derailed thread so better end it here.

[Vectrex]

for what it's worth I was equally horrified when I fired up snood (being a huge puzzle bobble fan, but the graphics didn't help ;) ). But being a fair minded person I actually played it and it IS different enough to warrent it's existance. They are only small changes on paper but it does make it a different game and I can see how casual players would like this better than puzzle bobble. Basically it comes down to no time limit and being punished more with worse moves. This makes the gameplay into a slow strategy type game where each move can be thought out and future planning are required. Plus the random levels make it interesting every time, something which ironicly put me off puzzle bobble after I'd played the same levels umpteen times.
And as for the graphics... well they're 'special' that's for sure :D BUT it got me thinking.. 'normal' people think they're cool simply because they have stupid faces, they don't even notice how insanely garish it is :( It's like music snobs might hate pop music, but if 95% of the population like it.. maybe we're actually wrong?? If you're the only one who likes something, does that make it better than everything else? Maybe it appeals to them because it looks like THEY did it :rolleyes:

[KNau]

Platypus clearly isn't a clone of a game. Snood clearly is.

That's only because of the amount of time and iterations that have passed since the first side scrolling shooter. By the arguments being put forth here, if Platypus had been released just after the first scrolling shooter it would have been a filthy clone, but since thousands of other similar games have been created since then it's now a "genre" piece instead.

Maybe if you could point out at exactly what point side scrollers became a genre instead of just "Defender rip-offs" then we would all know how many iterations we have to wait before it's safe to make a game.

[luggage]

So your theory is what, there's no such thing as clones? What in your opinion is a clone then? Would you say Half Life 2 is a clone of Wolfenstein?

The line has to be drawn somewhere and in my opinion Snood is on the wrong side of it. It's in the area marked Clone.

If Worms Blast was released not long after Puzzle Bobble I wouldn't have said that was a clone. Likewise is Platypus was released straight after Defender I wouldn't have said that was a clone.

[Nonz]

Not being one to argue semantics (yeah right) I would like to point out that Platypus couldn't be called a Defender clone simply because Defender is not a linear side-scroller.

Now if we were talking Scramble...

Actually I downloaded Platypus today and it's a blast to play, gotta love love that clay fragging. Just needed to add that.

[KNau]

Actually, the line doesn't have to be drawn at all since the customer (the one who issues your paycheck) doesn't give a rats ass.

This whole argument smacks of the "indie musician" mindset of a bunch of guys sitting in their garage talking about how they "keep it real" and "never sell out", all the while recording Nivana sound-alike songs and comparing gaywad me-too tribal tattoos. Arguments like "I'm original and would rather stay that way than make more money" only come from overpriveleged white people to begin with.

I understand the complaints about Snood, I don't agree but I understand. Just as I understand the argument against Flack's commentaries (I'm original, you're all cloners); they reek of self-importance where none is really warranted or deserved.

[luggage]

Arguments like "I'm original and would rather stay that way than make more money" only come from overpriveleged white people to begin with.I read that and that's enough for me.

[tentons]

Isn't it presumptuous to claim that you know what inspired Mr. Dobson and then accuse him of lying about it because he didn't specifically answer your demands? *pfft*

Another example of the arrogance of some people on this board.

[BongPig]

Its the lack of respect ive spoken about before rearing its ugly head.
Devs unable to openly admit exactly what thier inspirations are, for fear of actually complimenting another dev, heaven forbid! ;)

Anthony isnt claiming we have to be original. Just show some respect to the games that have inspired us over the years. Is that so hard to do?

Robotron & Defender. Robotron & Defender. Robotron & defender.
Love em, love em, love em!
... see thats no so difficult, and my ego is only *slightly* brused!

[Anthony Flack]

Actually, the line doesn't have to be drawn at all since the customer (the one who issues your paycheck) doesn't give a rats ass.

So, whatever you can get away with is fine, as long as you make plenty of money. There is no such thing as ethics. That's pretty disappointing.

People here have accused me of all kind of things - extremism, arrogance, insanity. That I have an unhealthy grudge against Snood somehow. But my feelings on the matter are quite unexceptional, and by no means restricted to Snood, although Luggage is correct to say that I find the evasiveness... irksome.

Most people don't like to see shameless rip-offs when they spot them. Most creative communities have very little time for the practice. If I were anywhere else except amongst indie game developers, there would be no controversy in what I say at all.

As for the supposed contradiction in me arguing for less restrictive copyright law, and the right for creators to recycle culture - not such a contradiction at all. I want to see this power used creatively, and I want to see people respect each other's work. If we can't behave in a responsible manner, then we have no right to complain if the law comes in and stomps all over everything, indiscriminately.

Nothing I have said has been motivated by hatred or jealousy, or personal malice or anything like that. It is all because I care a great deal, and have a lot of respect for, this artform that we practice. That's all.



Isn't it presumptuous to claim that you know what inspired Mr. Dobson and then accuse him of lying about it because he didn't specifically answer your demands? *pfft*

Another example of the arrogance of some people on this board.


You must be kidding. You're kidding, right? Please say you're kidding.

[Ricardo C]

So, whatever you can get away with is fine, as long as you make plenty of money. There is no such thing as ethics.

To quote something you said in that accursed old thread with the kid who ripped the sound effect from Doom for his game...


On the other hand, there are many perfectly legal things that I won't do because I consider them immoral. I take my ethical responsibilities seriously, but yes, I do decide these things for myself. Whether you consider that reprehensible isn't relevant - it isn't any of your business, really.

Artiste, heal thyself ;)

[BongPig]

If any of you wrote an *original* game, and somebody else ripped 90% of it and made more money then yourself, how would we feel about it, particularly if the other dev doesnt mention the original?

Can any of us say we wouldnt mind? Honestly?

[Ricardo C]

Well, considering Taito has made millions from its franchise, I'd say they're not terribly upset about a "lucky schmuck" (Anthony's words) with a Mac profiting from a clone ;)

But to answer the question, I would feel angry at myself for not exploiting the market the cloner did. And I would go through the clone with a microscope to see if any propietary assets were ripped from the original. If I found any infringement, I would take him to court. If not, I would revise my business strategy for my next project.

[svero]

If any of you wrote an *original* game, and somebody else ripped 90% of it and made more money then yourself, how would we feel about it, particularly if the other dev doesnt mention the original?

Can any of us say we wouldnt mind? Honestly?

Hmmmm... bit of a shame that. I guess I'm not going to get the support I hoped for from you guys when I release Mutant Typhoon and Galaxy Tripster next week...

[BongPig]

hehe @ svero.

Ricardo. Thats very calm & diplomatic view. In truth you would be more passionate then that if your *original* idea, which you worked hard to put together, was used, and profited on. I would be vexed in the very extreme!!

It seems to me most are making comments without any real experience in these matters. Have any of us even been cloned? Have any of us ever had our work copied and sold? No. So its easy to criticize Anthonys view, and call it extreme. Maybe one day we'll all know what if feels like to be ripped off in this way, and then we'll see if everybodys view is the same.

[Anthony Flack]

Well, considering Taito has made millions from its franchise, I'd say they're not terribly upset about a "lucky schmuck" (Anthony's words) with a Mac profiting from a clone

They may have been a little upset when Snood arrived on the GBA a month before Bust-a-move did, although possibly less upset if the general consensus was similar to the reviewers (do yourselves a favour and wait for the real thing). But I never really think of it as a who-made-how-much-money-when issue. I think I've said this before, but my feeling is that taking someone else's game design for your own, demonstrates a certain lack of respect for game design. And I have enormous respect for game design; far more than programming or graphics.

Besides, do you really want them to start getting upset? Patenting everything they can, and sueing everyone left and right? That may be where we end up if we're not careful.



I do decide these things for myself. Whether you consider that reprehensible isn't relevant - it isn't any of your business, really.

All right, I concede - it is your business. Or rather, it is healthy to debate these things with other people. And that's all this is - a debate. It's not like I'm weilding any authority here, except... disapproval.

[Ricardo C]

Ricardo. Thats very calm & diplomatic view. In truth you would be more passionate then that if your *original* idea, which you worked hard to put together, was used, and profited on. I would be vexed in the very extreme!!

I didn't deny I would be angry. But aside from that, what can I do? And assuming I profit from the title in question in the same proportion Taito profited from Puzzle Booble in relation to Snood, then I really will get over my anger rather quickly.

[luggage]

So you'd be angry if someone ripped your game off? Yet you're OK with ripping someone else's game off? Do unto others and all that.

[BongPig]

Obviously Ricardo, if your original version still outsold any clones, then who cares. But if that wasnt the case? Say you made your game on Mac, and before you could convert it to PC somebody else made a clone and got a serious head start on you, what then?

Actually, scrap that. We/I always end up getting hung up on peoples personal opinions, and thats not fair.
I feel one way. You feel another. Thats cool. Its not like we can ever really change each others views. We can only discuss to the point where everybody knows how everybody else feels. I certainly know everybodys view on this topic, now, Ill shut up! :)

[BongPig]

luggage, is that aimed at me?

[luggage]

Sorry, should have been clearer! No Mike. It was to Ricardo's "I didn't deny I would be angry." :)

But you're right, I think it's gone the full circle now.

[BongPig]

I guess the only reason im getting a bit angry ( or should that be frightened ) is that our current game, unlike our other 2, is a completely original idea. It terrifies me that 3 months after we release it, somebody like Popcap will make thier own version that'll no doubt sell bucket loads more than our own.

Of course, the game could end up crap, in which case I dont need to worry about it!

[JPGinLA]

BonPig, in the interest of helping you out and sharing something useful and not just debating, here's a tip that you can use to help your worries:

You are correct that your gameplay can be duplicated by others. However, your brand name, game name, user interface, artwork, characters, icons, etc. cannot if they are created by you (well, at least in civilized countries!). These things will be your protectable IP: copyrights and trademarks. Think about spending a little more time developing those portions of your game and if consumers like those aspects in addition to its gameplay, then it won't be as easily duplicated and, you'll also have some "brand equity" which may be valuable to for future projects.

-JPG

[Ricardo C]

So you'd be angry if someone ripped your game off?

Yes, as would anyone, I'm sure.


Yet you're OK with ripping someone else's game off? Do unto others and all that.

I'm ok with what Dobson did. Personally, I wouldn't go to those lenghts when imitating an existing product. In fact, I abandoned an idea I had for a Gauntlet-ish game, because I found Derelict and felt I would be treading in a fellow indie's territory, so I discarded it. But I'm fine with Dobson making Snood. More power to him.

Like I said earlier, my current project is based on an old classic. The characters are all new, and quite different from those in the original, as is the storyline, but the game mechanics are very reminiscent of the original game. I don't think I'll come under fire for it, since I'm hardly the first to revisit the old master, but yes, I am building on someone else's great idea. I feel no shame over it.

Contradictory? Maybe. But it's my honest opinion.

EDIT: Oops, I guess the discussion wound down while I posted :o

BongPig, you're a pleasure to argue with. Thanks for being the proverbial "cooler head" :)

Luggage, you're not so much a pleasure to argue with. But you made Zen Puzzle Garden, which means I'm obligated to like you anyway, for the rest of my natural life ;)

[luggage]

We didn't make Zen Puzzle Garden so feel free to hate me all you like.

[Anthony Flack]

The following may be of some relevance - it's based on exchange I had with Svero a short while ago:

He was pressing me about the differences between say, making a puzzle game clone, and a generic shooter. We've talked about this before, I'm sure, but it seemed appropriate as it had come up again.

I said that I felt the problematic aspects of cloning was something that mostly affected the "puzzle" game genre more than anything else. Because these games are defined by a small set of simple mechanics, very specifically set up and balanced against each other, and that this defines the game in its entirety. If you replicate this set of mechanics, you are effectively replicating the game.

And he repiled, is not a shooter based upon a similar set of simple mechanics?

To which I said, well, the mechanics of a shooter are based on the specifics of the way individual ships move and fire, and the way the various formations are set up and scripted, etc. It is the balance of these elements that defines a shooter, and this balance is quite different from one to the next.

So, he says, it's a question of content.

And I do think that it would be hard to put a charge of "clone" against a content-driven game. Like, for example, a point-and-click adventure. Say you have a point-and-click game, and all the mechanics of the point-and-click interface, etc, worked in exactly the same way as another. You wouldn't say that was a clone, right? However, if the puzzles and the story were also the same...

[svero]

Have any of us even been cloned? Have any of us ever had our work copied and sold? No. So its easy to criticize Anthonys view, and call it extreme. Maybe one day we'll all know what if feels like to be ripped off in this way, and then we'll see if everybodys view is the same.

Yup. I've been twice. More than cloned actually. Directly copied. And no I didn't care for it. There are three instances... One is a game called reflections by a german company. They used all the piece designs and rules from my game Aargon for their flash game, and took it a step further and copied the first 14 levels verbatim. The 2nd is a game called Aargon Professional, which not only took the game and the levels, but also the name of the game! That's been taken down and reflections now properly credits me. Both were due to some rather annoyed emails I sent. Now contrast that with chromatron, another aargon like game. Chromatron has it's own set of rules and it's own levels and pieces. It's very similar in many respects to Aargon, but it's not the same game. He credits reflections as the inspiration for it so I guess that means Aargon. I don't mind that at all. I've never had any problem with the chromatron guy. I don't mind derivitive works. The line is crossed for me when you stray from using the idea of a game into the exact content and minute details another game uses. The key problem with small puzzle games is that they are so small and so well defined by their gameplay that there's little room to maneuver without breaking the game.

- S

PS : (I guess I should also note that some people have accused aargon of being a clone of various gameboy and amiga titles. I'd never seen them until they were pointed out and frankly they're not similar games really except that they have lasers. They're similar like chess and checkers are similar. Anyone who's played both games will probably see that fairly quickly.)

[Dan MacDonald]

Woah woah woah, I don't mind a little back and fort about the nature of snood but this one is getting a little out of hand. While they may or may not be true let's keep the racial stereotypes to a minimum eh?

My take, if you quote something in an academic paper you are required to cite the source or you are thrown out of school for plagerism. Dobson admits that the game is not entirely original and cites several influences. I suppose this is accurate in an academic sense. What Anthony is aggressively pushing for is that Dobson cite the single most important source of his influence. I'm not familiar with everything that dobson has said publicly about snood so I can't pass any judgment. If indeed he avoids mentioning puzzle bobble then this is a little less then classy, however it's not really a crime.

[DavidRM]

(In the best--if meager--Jack Nicholson impression he can muster)

This thread needs an enema!

-David

[goodsol]

I've posted some comments about this thread on my blog:

http://www.asharewarelife.com/2005/02/power-of-personality.html

In addition, I think an issue here is that gamers miss why Snood is successful because of their experience with hard core games. That's probably a big reason why so many here think the graphics in Snood are bad when non-gamers will think they are fine. Non-gamers outnumber gamers and probably always will. Snood is not targeted at gamers, it's targeted at non-gamers.

[george]

My take, if you quote something in an academic paper you are required to cite the source or you are thrown out of school for plagerism. Dobson admits that the game is not entirely original and cites several influences. I suppose this is accurate in an academic sense. What Anthony is aggressively pushing for is that Dobson cite the single most important source of his influence. I'm not familiar with everything that dobson has said publicly about snood so I can't pass any judgment. If indeed he avoids mentioning puzzle bobble then this is a little less then classy, however it's not really a crime.

maybe he doesn't want to mention it's a puzzle bobble clone because it's not good marketing... guys, do you mention what clone your game is of? i don't think so... "Play this great puzzle bobble clone!" -- it doesn't work, it doesn't look good... what if people don't know puzzle bobble, or they will be turned of by a clone. i guess he could have mentioned it in the interview, that he was inspired from puzzle bobble specifically (if he indeed was)...

[Jim Buck]

PS : (I guess I should also note that some people have accused aargon of being a clone of various gameboy and amiga titles. I'd never seen them until they were pointed out and frankly they're not similar games really except that they have lasers. They're similar like chess and checkers are similar. Anyone who's played both games will probably see that fairly quickly.)

I think this is an important point that someone had mentioned earlier - everyone assumes they everyone has heard of and played the same games that they have. I myself had only heard of Puzzle Bobble and Snood from these forums.. and I've never played or seen either. Who's to say what Dave heard of and played at the time he made Snood? I'd like to hear if he knew about Puzzle Bobble before making Snood so it would put this tired thread to rest. :)

[Dan MacDonald]

Well your right George, it's really a judgment call by the author. Poor Marketing vs. Professional Courtesy. This is not a cut and dry issue however, which is why this thread is so huge. People draw the line between the two in different places.

[Armsfeld]

These seem to be the main arguments:


Snood isn't a game in the puzzle bobble genre, it's a clone of puzzle bobble.
Dave has lied about this and needs to humble himself publically.
His game is ugly.


Did I forget anything?

Need more ideas to keep Dave in his place? Check out google (http://www.google.com/search?q=hazing).

[ddobson]

This is getting outrageous.

I have said before, to reporters, to students, to customers, multiple times, that Snood borrows heavily from Bust A Move and Puzzle Bobble. Nobody here has read those articles; nobody here was present for those interviews. Quit supposing that you know what I said or didn't, or imagining what I said or didn't. You're constructing straw men and knocking them down with no knowledge of the facts. Even if I hadn't said these things, the comments here about me and my character are out of line.

My art sucks. So I have thought. So have my art teachers thought. If you could see the hideous teapot I made in seventh grade, you'd have all the evidence you need. HOWEVER, in the context of Snood, people like the art. It's a major draw. People think it's cute, and they like the little guys. They buy a lot of shirts and coffee mugs with the art on it. No kidding.

I made my own art for my earlier game, Centaurian (and before Anthony gets his blood pressure up, IT WAS BASED ON BOSCONIAN, A GAME THAT I LOVED - that clear enough for you? Nobody's ever cared that it was or criticized it on that basis). The reviews for Centaurian said the graphics were crude and looked like I made them on my own in MacDraw. They were. I did. I used the same exact technique for Snood, but in that case, the art is "retro," "charming," "expressive," etc. Go figure.

I am not sure what the lesson there is, other than that you can succeed in ways and with products that the game establishment and hardcore gamers don't like, if the game is fun. I think the design elements I included, i.e. the short game length, random layouts or designed levels, unmatchable skulls, mouse control, fluid collision detection, and the whole Danger Bar system and the resulting no-pressure game style, made this particular game archetype more fun and more accessible to lots of people, particularly non-traditional gamers. These aren't huge innovations, but they ARE design elements, and I thought hard about what I was doing and tested the game with a big variety of people, including lots of non-gamers. I think they're critical to the success of the game.

So, a good chunk of the success of Snood was the fun of the basic game type; some was my design elements; some was my art and cheesy sound effects; some was my marketing (price point, registration benefits, nag designs, etc.); some was my customer support; and a bunch was dumb luck. Could anybody duplicate what I did? Not exactly; there was barely a WWW when I got started; I advertised in Usenet newsgroups to get the ball rolling. But if you make a fun game, put your heart into it, test it a lot, answer every e-mail you get, and treat folks how you'd like to be treated, you've got a shot at going a long way.

It also helps to have some semblance of courtesy and a sense of humor, both of which seem to be sorely lacking here.

Sincerely,
Dave

[luggage]

Even if I hadn't said these things, the comments here about me and my character are out of line.I don't think anyone has made serious comments about you or your character. What, exactly, has upset you?

Take these forums with a pinch of salt. Problems only arise when people start linking to them from the outside world. :) Otherwise it's fairly self contained.

Don't take it too personally, the discussion is more about clones and just using Snood as an example that sparked it off. Some think it's ok to rip off another's game idea, others don't. meh!

[Savant]

To be fair, he HAS taken a lot of flak in this thread. I think the fact that he shows up at all to defend himself is admirable, if a little pointless.

[Escotia]

To be fair, he HAS taken a lot of flak...

You meant 'Flack', surely? :D

Sorry, terrible joke but couldn't resist. :o

[Dan MacDonald]

I made my own art for my earlier game, Centaurian (and before Anthony gets his blood pressure up, IT WAS BASED ON BOSCONIAN, A GAME THAT I LOVED - that clear enough for you?

Haha, dave I gotta say, you rock.

I also think you estimation of why snood is successful and you advice to be pretty much on the money. I've always been a proponent of having 1st time indie developers start out making a game that borrows liberally from another game that they appreciate. Like you said earlier all the things like UI development, installers, product pages, promotion is all really invisible until you've actually finished a game and sold it for yourself.

Having to invent an entirely new gameplay mechanic for some new game that is totally origional at the same time as merly trying to finish your first game is a recipy for failure IMO.

[Anthony Flack]

Snood has come in for quite a lot of criticism from those who just don't understand the appeal of the game. These game developers don't like Snood's graphics, even though these same graphics are a big part of the reason the game is so successful. They object to the game being a clone, even though there are many other clones of the same game (such as PopCap's Dynomite) that are not subjected to the same criticism. And of course most of these people are developers of clone games themselves.


Well, I personally haven't been going on about Snood's graphics at all, since I don't think that's relevant. In fact, as ugly as the game may be, I actually think the way the Snoods have been used in the merchanidising is quite effective. Ironically, perhaps, I think the merchanidising line is a very good use of Dave's original creations (the faces), and I'm happy to see him make money off that.

As for the other clones, of course I have objected to those as well. Many times. This is a discussion that we've had before, without any reference to Snood at all. You seem to be of the opinion that Snood has been unfairly singled out for some reason. It hasn't.

And I'm not sure who the other makers of clone games are that you refer to, unless you're persisting with the "it's a clone of nothing in particular" line.

As far as the Dave Dobson character assasination charge goes, I think that once again, Luggage said it best. Some of the more vicious attacks I made on Dave included the outrageous claims that, "I'm sure Dave is a good guy and there's nothing sinister about him. I'm also sure he's done nothing deliberately malicious in making Snood". I did object to what I saw as evasiveness on Dave's part. Dave, if you have been upfront about all this elsewhere, then I apologise, and I'll just put it down to a bad reporter again. But based on that, and your earlier comments here, I certainly wasn't the only one to assume you were being evasive. If not, then sorry.

Anyway, by far the person who has come in for the most personal criticism has been me, for once again daring to raise the issue of what should be considered fair game. That's okay. I can live with being considered extreme, or insane, even though I don't really think I'm either.

The only think that really bothers me is the charge of arrogance; the assumption that in saying these things, I'm putting myself on a pedestal as the font of glorious originality, or something. I'm not.

I think I can make a reasonably fun game. I can program okay. I can make it look pretty. And I know it's definitely my own designs I'm using (I've never used another game as a design template). But I never claimed anything beyond this.

As a game designer, I am a rank beginner, taking my first steps. I look at some of the elegant, beautiful design of the great games, and I feel like a bumbling fool. I don't know that I will ever be able to make a game that even comes close to the work of the masters, even if I keep at it for another 30 years.

I can dismiss programming, graphics and the rest pretty easily. They're just techniques, you can learn them easily enough. Game design is the real heart of the artform. This is why it dismays me to see the indie game scene become so rife with game clones.

Really, that doesn't make me such a bad person, does it?

[svero]

I've posted some comments about this thread on my blog:

http://www.asharewarelife.com/2005/...ersonality.html


I can't say I agree with this blog post... Some of it I do, but much I don't.

First I think it's wrong to state that game developers don't understand the appeal of snood. I understand it just fine. I think I know why it did well. To state that people who are hard-core gamers don't get Snood seems like a completely pointless observation to me because everyone knows that the player of half life etc... is not the same person playing Snood. Snood is a game that appeals to casual gamers. It always was and I don't think there was ever any mystery or confusion associated with that fact.

If people are saying that snood doesnt have graphics like half life and therefor they don't get it.. well those people must number few indeed. It's not that the graphics don't match hard core graphics, it's that even in the casual sphere of games they're bad. But I think it's important to put it in context. When snood was released there were no Zuma's and Bejeweled's to contend with. Snood was a well implemented casual game at a time when there was nothing to speak of in similar veign to compete with. And I think you're right if you say people don't give Snood it's due, in the sense that Dave was there doing the sort of things and thinking about the sort things that appeal to non-traditional gamers before others were.

However, if you released it today in the face of competition from the likes of games like those mentioned the results would be VERY different. Snood had good timing, and it isn't jealousy to say so. It just did. That Dave was there thinking about doing these things before others goes to his credit, but none the less timing was a factor in Snood's success. Many companies made a fortune starting ISP's as the internet boomed. Today if you start and ISP you're in for an uphill climb to reach the kind of profits companies did back then. To discuss Snood's success without taking into account the market when the game was released makes no sense. It was successful because it was targeted at casual gamers when few other games were. And particularly because the way he targeted it at casual gamers was correct (ie mouse control, downloadable, quick games etc...)

You say...

"All these WannaBe-jeweleds have taken over the prime positions on all the best selling portals. So all these game developers believe that the key to success is to make a game just like all these other games."

...and then go on to point out how this is a fallacy and you want to be different. Well the fact of the matter is that, while being different can be good if you have a breakout success, from the perspective of a company trying to make a few bucks it's far safer and more effective to copy. Maybe the odd gem will sneak in and be successful, but by and large the wanna-be-jeweleds are making a hell of a lot more money than the vast majority of non-clones. A breakout game can pull in 30-40k a month on realarcade. So the answer is to not make breakout games?

A strategy for success on the portals is to copy and rip off other successful games. It works. The only thing that could be said about it failing is that when you have too many of the same kind of clone the market starts to saturate and companies making these games get a smaller chunk of the pie.

But in practice this doesn't happen much because the number of games that copy and "get it right" are very few and generally well within the tolerance that the market can handle. There's room for another "good" bejewled because there are generally not very many good ones at any given time.

Making a great game, even a clone, is very very hard. Most of the wanna-be-jeweleds that fail, do so because they're bad games, and not because people are bored of bejeweled. You just need to look and see the number of clones that didnt succeed only to be fallowed by an excellent production like big kahuna selling in all the number one spots to see that what I'm saying is true.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that having a new original game that also appeals to the market is a bad thing. Of course that's the ideal.You do want to be unique and you can be much more successful that way, but in terms of developer risk, clones of bejeweled are a pretty safe bet relative to trying something new.

I agree with your comments on game personality and style.

[Armsfeld]

Really, that doesn't make me such a bad person, does it?

I'm sure you're not.

Perhaps all of us should make an effort to separate theoretical discussions from personal ones. This may have prevented the social faux pas we all helped create in this thread.

[luggage]

A breakout game can pull in 30-40k a month on realarcade.Wish you'd told me that before!

*File...*
*New Project...*
*Party BreakOut...*

[svero]

Wish you'd told me that before!

*File...*
*New Project...*
*Party BreakOut...*

A *hit* breakout game like ricochet or magic ball can. Not *every* breakout game.

- S

[luggage]

bah! Knew there was a catch.

dream basher!

[ddobson]

Not to belabor the point, but here are some examples of what made me a trifle defensive:

"...that it's a clone, and a crappily made one at that. That's not just an oversight - it's downright crooked." -- Anthony

"If Snood took more than two months to write from start to finish, I would believe the person had never touched a computer the day before he started coding." -- Raptisoft

"Atrociously ugly and unintuitive website ... mediocre (at best) graphics." -- KNau

"...lying to reporters about your program is misleading, and deceiving, and unethical." -- Omega

"... I would consider it unethical to charge money for such a derivative work." -- Anthony

"...adding a lick of paint (or in Snood's case horrendous paint)..." -- luggage

"...but this evasiveness is something else." -- Anthony

"I don't really mind that Dave does this, but I admit that it makes me think less of his character." -- Triple Fox

"...it's a clone. A freakishly ugly one..." -- Ricardo C

Now, I can take criticism; I know my game's origins; I know the art's not some 3D-rendered Anime-inspired Neo-Rembrandt. But in addition to the criticism, which wouldn't really get to me on its own, people were imagining a false reality and then bashing me for how I behaved in their daydream.

One final thing - I played Platypus last night, and I instantly thought, this is R-Type, with different graphics. I can't conceive of how I'm being raked over the coals for this by someone who did it himself.

For what it's worth, I also had my marketing hat on, and thought:

1) Don't nag so soon; I always wait until they've played quite a few games before the first "Please" window

2) Have an instructions/help option obvious on the first page people see.

3) Don't ask for the e-mail address as the first thing in the game; you want your users to slide effortlessly into the game, and nobody really wants to give their e-mail address right away if ever (I differ with my partner Jeff on this; he has people enter it at download)

4) Give them a lot more than an hour to decide if they like it. I know Real does this, but I think it's a bad move for independent folks who don't have the whole library that Real does. You're only going to get 0.5-1% of downloaders to register, best case, so you should make sure those folks play long enough to grow their interest and maybe share the game with somebody else.

A lot of Snood's early success was that you could basically play the whole thing unlimited without registering, and that meant it got played for months or years by unregistered people, who shared it all over. There's not much chance that people will share it after an hour, and a timer can be intrusive and add counterproductive pressure to the experience. As I added new features, I made them registered-user only, but the core game was there unlimited. Once we had a relatively huge market penetration, we made some of the features time out or be more limited (the harder difficulty levels, and the higher puzzle levels). Even then, the game limit is very high, in the hundreds, before you run out and have to register, and it is still possible to play the game forever without registering.

Sincerely,
Dave

[Raptisoft]

"If Snood took more than two months to write from start to finish, I would believe the person had never touched a computer the day before he started coding." -- Raptisoft

I'm sorry: I apologize. Snideness is one of those bugs I'm trying to edit out of my assembly.

[Anthony Flack]

I played Platypus last night, and I instantly thought, this is R-Type, with different graphics. I can't conceive of how I'm being raked over the coals for this by someone who did it himself.

You thought instantly, as in, as soon as you fired up the game? As in, before you had any chance to ascertain whether the game actually plays out like R-Type? Or just long enough to note that it featured a flying, shooting aeroplane, viewed from the side, and that was R-Typey enough?

It's not an R-Type clone, as any R-Type fan will tell you. Still, someone had a go at this argument before and tried using Defender, which is a far worse comparison. Actually, it's been compared to quite a few different games, some of which I'd never even heard of. I guess that, as simple a game as it might be, different aspects of it remind people of different things.

[Badman]

Haha, dave I gotta say, you rock.

I also think you estimation of why snood is successful and you advice to be pretty much on the money. I've always been a proponent of having 1st time indie developers start out making a game that borrows liberally from another game that they appreciate. Like you said earlier all the things like UI development, installers, product pages, promotion is all really invisible until you've actually finished a game and sold it for yourself.

Having to invent an entirely new gameplay mechanic for some new game that is totally origional at the same time as merly trying to finish your first game is a recipy for failure IMO.

Ack! Don't say that! As far as I know, the game I'm currently working on is an original title! Don't jinx me!

[Anthony Flack]

"...that it's a clone, and a crappily made one at that. That's not just an oversight - it's downright crooked." -- Anthony


For what it's worth, this was directed at the reporter. As in, the person responsible for that article, that lots and lots of people complained about.

[Badman]

Wish you'd told me that before!

*File...*
*New Project...*
*Party BreakOut...*

See, that would be great! Are there any multiplayer Breakout-style games out there? I remember playing Warlords on the Atari, which was effectively four-player Breakout and I've never seen any other game like it.

[Midnight Synergy]

Hehe, Warlords has been on my list of possible projects for 15 years now. I actually had a half-finished version coded in 6502 assembly for the C-64. Then I sold it and got an ST. The main thing about Warlords was that it was so freaking fast! I wonder how that would play with today's audiences - a casual game with hardcore mentality.

Now back to your regularly scheduled flame-fest (which I'm staying out of, my insurance won't cover me!).

[Bmc]

someone needs to put a bullet in this thread.

[Vectrex]

someone needs to put a bullet in this thread.

I'll get the hession bag and a brick. We'll just tell the kids it ran away

[Jim Buck]

3) Don't ask for the e-mail address as the first thing in the game; you want your users to slide effortlessly into the game, and nobody really wants to give their e-mail address right away if ever (I differ with my partner Jeff on this; he has people enter it at download)


After all the talk on this thread, I decided to download Snood. I went to the Snood website, but for the reason stated above about entering an email, I searched for some other place to download the game from. (I ended up getting it from download.com.)

[JPGinLA]

Hi John,

Glad you got Snood from download.com! There are certainly pros and cons to our method. We've put a lot thought into our decision and tested various methods over the years. I'd be glad to share WOM Games thoughts on this subject with you and others, and listen to the Forum's thoughts. Perhaps someone should start another thread though.

-JPG

[Dan MacDonald]

Badman: the right idea kept small can be done. Something like add-em-up is a great example. It still took bluebug a lot longer to polish add-em-up then it would have if he had just knocked off bejewled. In the end it's worth it, but the experience of just shipping a game is so valuable I think it warrens putting aside the challenging aspects of game design so that you can earn your stripes so to speak.

ddobson: I agree that there were some pretty critical posts in this thread but I think you've done a good job addressing them and have come off looking like a pretty decent guy. I'm inclined to close this thread as I don't see any other positive directions it can go from here.

To the forum members - You are all crazy! (Myself included I suppose) :cool:

EDIT: I think JPGinLA and ddobson have some interesting insights to share, but I feel it's probably content for other threads.