Serious Hostility About Gameplay Cloning

[Sharpfish]

Originally Posted by Savant

As an aside, this sort of comment - not useful. That's obvious. The issue is important, however, and should be discussed and taken to heart.

?? Ok then, add something useful because I certainly have taken it to heart and discussed it. If I want to try and lighten things a little with a bit of "obvious" humour I will, it is harming no one and shows that I treat all cases equally and am not into taking sides.

I am sure to anyone reading it was a joke, and even if not - it is not in anway harmful so I don't understand why you have picked that out?? or even which part -as you quote two parts??

Just for clarity - I can not answer for my actions If I do not know what you are referring to. The fact I said "STOP IT AND DEV THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS"? you think that is a comment that "isn't useful"? you think it was meant to anything more than a joke? Do you think I belive everything I say to be of any importance to anyone but myself? No, but that is no excuse for not being more light hearted about things.. or would you rather see the thread get too hot and end up closed?

*sigh*

[merovingian]

Originally Posted by soniCron

What's difficult to clone? Highly complex gameplay is all that I can figure, and when you're going down that road, you're targetting a completely different audience.

Back in the day, indie developers came up with games like Phear, and they were so interesting, and so compelling that Nintendo bought them out and renamed it Tetrisphere...

Then there's Atari's I, Robot, but that wasn't an indie game...

I have a few such ideas of my own, but alas, my hands remain tied by RSI. The key is that both of those games were more technically sophisticated than what most indies are capable of writing...

[Robert Cummings]

I think the real issue here is whether a derivative game is a "clone" or a "parasite."

Or a vast improvement on the original...

[merovingian]

Originally Posted by Savant

To call it sour grapes is to miss Jason's point. The indie developer community is supposedly about freedom and doing things the mainstream can't, but it seems to be sliding in exactly the opposite direction.

And here I thought with all the Bookworm, Bust-A-Move, Scramble, and Arkanoid clones out there that the community had been there for quite some time. I'm just not seeing the problem here - Jason needs to take a good long look at what his company is swinging between its corporate legs and relax - and if someone makes a better knockoff, they should learn from them (or better yet, hire them).

As for me, being someone who once took the indie philosophy to an absurd extreme (though it did have a happy ending at least), there's nothing wrong with making money and that's certainly something the mainstream mostly can't do without becoming an enormous publisher to offset all the losses from the dogs.

Popcap's doing great work: as long as they stick to making great games, they'll be fine.

[Jack Norton]

Originally Posted by merovingian

Popcap's doing great work: as long as they stick to making great games, they'll be fine.

Yes I agree.
Also: ARE THEY SURE THAT THEY ARE LOSING MONEY WITH THE CLONES?
Maybe a customer buys Fairies first because of graphic. Then he search for similar games and find Chuzzle (many portals have direct links like "if you like this game you might also like..."). And he buys Chuzzle. Maybe he would have never bought it, if didn't play Fairies first.

Tell me why couldn't go this way?

(sorry about speaking of the same games, is just an example)!

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by Raptisoft

I think the real issue here is whether a derivative game is a "clone" or a "parasite."

Maybe...

But I also think this is just the nature of the casual games market right now. The portals don't want original games. They mostly want reskinned clones with a few new twists added. They're not trying to build up their game library, they're trying to find the next top ten hit. Developers either have to do a derivative game or come up with something original. Creating an original top ten caliber game is beyond the scope of most Indies here, so most end up doing derivatives.

But is a "clone" and a "parasite" derivative all that different from each other? Both are trying to capitalize off the success of the original. Both leave the core gameplay basically untouched. Both are basically a reskin of the original. Is it really all that different if one of them adds a trophy cabinet or story mode?

I think if you don't want to see "clones" or "parasites" of your game, then you should stop developing casual games. The barrier to entry is still relatively low compared to other genres and it seems casual games love more of the same thing but with different themes. The causal gamers are in a large part dictating this current trend. I really think with the simplistic gameplay of most casual games, casual games overall are starting to become commoditized. Patrox's Papa John's analogy doesn't seem too far off the mark.

Likewise, I agree that the whole Indie community shouldn't be grouped into this casual craze. There's a lot of other Indies out there who make strategy, sim, shooters, web games and etc. Many of them don't post on this board. It's just this forum is mostly focused on the Indie "business" aspect, which means most people here are out to make money with their games. Casual games are the hot spot right now, so it gets a lot of attention here. The portals are the current gatekeepers for casual games and they don't encourage originality with their tight submission standards. If you want to have a chance of making money with casual games you have to follow the pack or be Popcap. ;-)

If you're looking for the true Indie spirit, the casual game industry is definitely the wrong place to be looking right now

[Sharpfish]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Maybe...
I think if you don't want to see "clones" or "parasites" of your game, then you should stop developing casual games. The barrier to entry is still relatively low compared to other genres and it seems casual games love more of the same thing but with different themes. The causal gamers are in a large part dictating this current trend.

Agreed!

I know that the game I am working on has little chance of being cloned because

A. It is not that simple to implement the way I am doing it, though "simper derivatives" could be made I suppose.

B. I doubt any serious developer who is just in it for the money would even bother cloning a game like what I am developing. It is too risky and probably wouldn't pay off for them.

If I decided to make a very generic 2D puzzle game but with a "new idea" then you can bet I would be prepared to see that idea return in different games from other casual game developers. You can't fight it so just keep doing what you do and be happy

I am probably further away from the cloning games spectrum and more into trying out new ways of casual gaming, but I can still see it from the point of view of the so called "cloning" companies, and can not see what they are doing wrong from a business point of view. Even ethically they don't appear to be making these games with any bad intentions.

It is not as if I am saying all this stuff on the subject to try and clear the way for my "Zuma Remake" or "Chuzzle knock-off". I just feel a lot of people are so focussed on their own little area that they can't step back once in a while and see the big picture, and understand everyone as the right to do what they have to do to taking into account their finances, skills and free time if they want to make money from their games.

If they DON'T want to make money from their games that is a whole different area, and when I first joined up here I was told many times that THIS was not the place to discuss such matters as "games for the sake of the art" it was a strictly BUSINESS oriented forum... what has happened to that? Where are the professional replies and business respect/understanding for others? Why are the threads coming down to something you are more likely to see posted on a gaming forum than a developers forum, and yet when people try to get to the issue trying to be fair and detailed -it get's ignored or points are taken out of context and used in a weary "battle" of views.

[Raptisoft]

So... we've seriously gotten to the point where someone makes a game "clone" (I'd call parasite) and doesn't change any game rules-- only changes the graphics, and maybe leaves one or two game items out, and makes minor changes to how the levelup is represented (but DOESN'T change it from the fact that you accumulate matches to level up)...

...and you're saying the people who complain about this cloning should adapt to the "new way?"

Do you understand how destructive this is? Lemme give you a few points I can rip right off the top of my head:

#1: Chuzzle earnings will now go down. Those missing earnings will be split between Gem Shop and Fairies. So, even though Popcap (and me) is getting less money, the other guys aren't getting the corresponding missing amount. This is like having a man in the desert with a glass of water, and five strangers come up to him. One man can drink the water and survive, or all five can take a sip, and all die. These clones that don't do anything with the game aren't broadening the video game scene, they're destroying wealth. I *DO* make a *LARGE* distinction between cloning a game that's finished its earning cycle, and one that hasn't. A game that just seeks to piggyback on a game is a parasite. Example: Luxor was derivative of Zuma, not a parasite.

#2: Chuzzle is a simple game implementation. But I spent six months on it, shunning family, friends, etc, to get it up to Popcap standards of compatibility,fun, and beauty. You're saying that this should be free R & D time for these other studios. I notice all these other games use a 6x6 grid. Did you know I spent a LONG time playing with 9x9 grids, 5x5 grids, and every combination in between, to find the perfect size for "fun?" Free R & D, right? Ask anyone at Popcap how I was on the machine for 12-14 hour days, week after week, because I was getting things *just right* so that some other studio could walk up and say "hey, 6x6 and locks! Got it!" That is infuriating-- especially when, as we see in #3:

#3: This is the big galling thing to me. These other games didn't even improvise when it made sense to. For instance, consider Fairies, and locking rows. He should have had fairies escape, leaving an empty jar that couldn't be matched with anything. It would have been a different effect, a different game, and would have brought something new to the mechanic. And gem shop-- flawed gems lock the rows; how about instead of doing that, put in some weird gems that, when they get next to eachother, they snap together, forming a lock that you can completely avoid, just by not moving them near eachother. These are ideas that I just threw off the top of my head in a matter of a couple seconds-- both of them would have made the games clones instead of parasites, and not only that, but they make more sense with the theme! But why bother when there's free R & D out there, right? So the summation of #3 is STAGNATION. Look, here's my new game, it's like Bejewelled, except you're swapping chocolates. Indie stagnation.

Note that I don't take any legal position on this: They can clone. But I find it more rude than anything else. And like Jason in another thread, it makes me feel sad, because right now the indie scene is looking like 1996-1997-- when everyone and his brother came out with a Warcraft clone. But even Warcraft was allowed to finish its earning cycle before being cloned.

[Raptisoft]

I think if you don't want to see "clones" or "parasites" of your game, then you should stop developing casual games.

What the hell? If you don't want me to sleep with your girlfriend, then you shouldn't have a girlfriend.

[luggage]

I think it's more of a case of... look around at the casual game space and you see a lot of clones. If you choose to make a casual game and it does well don't be surprised to see your own game cloned.

Or maybe.. "if you don't want me to sleep with your girlfriend then you shouldn't have come to a swinger's party"
(nb. that's not from experience. honest.)

[Sharpfish]

Well thanks John for providing some decent input at last as to exactly where you problems lay with that other game. And belive me I can see how many of those points would understandably get-to you. I just don't see that there is anything we can do about them, except accept them as innevitable and move on. Anything outside that scope would obviously be more serious and down to private comms between yourselves and the other party.

Originally Posted by Raptisoft

So... we've seriously gotten to the point where someone makes a game "clone" (I'd call parasite) and doesn't change any game rules-- only changes the graphics, and maybe leaves one or two game items out, and makes minor changes to how the levelup is represented (but DOESN'T change it from the fact that you accumulate matches to level up)...

Don't all match 3 games pretty much accumulate matches to progress? You must yourself have studied those games to see how they went about it - amounts, challenge, gameplay tweaking and adopted it to your style? Obviously the rest of that paragraph is not disputed that does sound bad when you say it like that - I just don't think the "Buyers" would particularly see it that way (to the detriment of chuzzle) other than the normal (previously mentioned) competition.

...and you're saying the people who complain about this cloning should adapt to the "new way?"

Not at all. It's just that many of us don't see it that way unless we can see how it affects *our sales*, if you have a genuine problem with another game being far too close for comfort then obviously you are well within your rights to chase the matter - again though, there is nothing a discussion in the thread of that game can do to help the matter - there are no laws for gameplay copying or patents (as well all know and usually are thankful for). Maybe you should have talked to Emmanuel in depth about this to see where what his view of it was?

Do you understand how destructive this is? Lemme give you a few points I can rip right off the top of my head:

I understand from a pride and passion point of view, how demoralising it can be. I have had similar things happen to myself in the past, making add-on maps for Unreal, which I am sure is seen as trivial - however I could spend upto 6 months working on those in my free time, I released what became somewhat "influential" maps, not because they were "great" but because they were "different". And I saw a lot of rip-offs, some even USED my assets (custom meshes, textures etc). A few even just copied the whole map and repackaged it. Now I know this is different to the issue here, those maps were FREE and we had zero control over them and eventually I gave up because I was fed up of spending months on being creative only to be ripped off and be left with a product with no "Unique" features. So I do understand how it can make you feel and I am on your side with that.

#1: Chuzzle earnings will now go down. Those missing earnings will be split between Gem Shop and Fairies. So, even though Popcap (and me) is getting less money, the other guys aren't getting the corresponding missing amount. This is like having a man in the desert with a glass of water, and five strangers come up to him. One man can drink the water and survive, or all five can take a sip, and all die. These clones that don't do anything with the game aren't broadening the video game scene, they're destroying wealth. I *DO* make a *LARGE* distinction between cloning a game that's finished its earning cycle, and one that hasn't. A game that just seeks to piggyback on a game is a parasite. Example: Luxor was derivative of Zuma, not a parasite.

so you main problem is they didn't leave enough time between the success of one game before making an "imitation with a reskin" to soak up the stragglers?
I can't really comment on that, as it is becomming more than obvious all of this is really none of my business and seems like a direct complaint to forward to the "other developer".

#2: Chuzzle is a simple game implementation. But I spent six months on it, shunning family, friends, etc, to get it up to Popcap standards of compatibility,fun, and beauty. You're saying that this should be free R & D time for these other studios. I notice all these other games use a 6x6 grid. Did you know I spent a LONG time playing with 9x9 grids, 5x5 grids, and every combination in between, to find the perfect size for "fun?" Free R & D, right? Ask anyone at Popcap how I was on the machine for 12-14 hour days, week after week, because I was getting things *just right* so that some other studio could walk up and say "hey, 6x6 and locks! Got it!" That is infuriating-- especially when, as we see in #3:

Yeah, I can also understand this - I doubt anyone thinks it is "great" that your research and findings is so blatantly copied verbatim to make another game that could harm sales of the originator. I too have spent a hell of a long time trying all sorts of ways of doing things in my game, I hope that no-one clones it straight away - but again - there is nothing I can really do if that is the case, it is a risk we all take, and look on the bright side - you at least had success with your game.. something many of us can only hope for. Even if through it's popularity it ends up being cloned. Also I do think you have to give *some* people the benifit of the doubt, I can not speak for "the other developer" and am not implying he never looked at your game, but as game developers we are ALL aware of a lot of gameplay systems, and we will probably ALL try prototypes of grid sizes and control systems before arriving at the one that suits the game - it could just be co-incendce but even if not, is there a hungry market out there for sliding games played only on 6x6 grids?
Most devs are aware that gameplay is a compromise to graphics in many cases, and in the case of 6x6 I am sure some of that must be attributed to the fact that the sprites just looked best at the size that 6x6 afforded. There may be deeper gameplay balance issues with 6x6 but I have seen all sorts of games and clones using different grid sizes from their originals.
The locking thing - as far as I know that was a chuzzle first (anyone correct me?) and if that was obviously copied without change then it isn't particularly "fair" on you, likewise it is beyond the scope of what can constitute I.P and we all have to accept that when we innovate we risk being imitated. Is there anything you can see that would help alieviate this obvious "growth" other than restrictive copyright practices? Anything you feel could be done after the fact to appease your obvious frustration? We could all form a "goodwill" committee and promise not to rip each other too closely, but someone outside that group always would. What can we do?

#3: This is the big galling thing to me. These other games didn't even improvise when it made sense to. For instance, consider Fairies, and locking rows. He should have had fairies escape, leaving an empty jar that couldn't be matched with anything. It would have been a different effect, a different game, and would have brought something new to the mechanic. And gem shop-- flawed gems lock the rows; how about instead of doing that, put in some weird gems that, when they get next to eachother, they snap together, forming a lock that you can completely avoid, just by not moving them near eachother. These are ideas that I just threw off the top of my head in a matter of a couple seconds-- both of them would have made the games clones instead of parasites, and not only that, but they make more sense with the theme! But why bother when there's free R & D out there, right? So the summation of #3 is STAGNATION. Look, here's my new game, it's like Bejewelled, except you're swapping chocolates. Indie stagnation.

I am certain your concerns for your income and your own company are far greater than your concerns for indiegames as a whole. If not you would have followed in the path of Hamsterball and made something a bit more different again. You knew you needed money so you took inspiration from casual games, luckily you picked up on an much less known gameplay style (even saying you didn't know about previous games - fair enough), but there is only so much to be done with 2D puzzle type games - and if dev X didn't do it Dev Y would.. and they would still be sharing the market with you. How can you honestly ask someone else who also has to pay his bills, and feed his kids or whatever to "kindly not make a game in a successful style because we want the monopoly on it" - even if you did "invent" it.

Retail doesn't even work like that, there are various games inspired from others, they all sell - the money is in the implementation. The better implemented ones sell, the rubbish ones (usually) don't. Why is it different in the indie world?

<cont>>>

[Sharpfish]

Note that I don't take any legal position on this: They can clone. But I find it more rude than anything else.

Yeah I agree with this, if you had come out and stated it so clearly <edited to remove possibly misunderstandable comments towards original posts from Jason > I would probably had nothing to say on the matter.. THe facts are it MAY well affect your profits, and that is no trivial matter.

** I have to add I STILL can not see the release of Faries directly and massively competing with Chuzzle. I can not see people saying "I really want to play a sliding row game" like they do with a "zuma" game, because it is just not as universally fun or as well known yet. I DO think they will say "I want to play a really cute game with fluffy creatures in" or "I really want to play a game based on faries" and go from there. I think the crossover is minimal becasue the gameplay itself is not defined enough to be compulsive, for a large part - the ONLY people who would be thinking like that at this stage are people who had already BOUGHT and played chuzzle a lot to be "conditioned" to wanting more of the same. Can you not see the logic in this? Both games are THEME led, and sell based on their theme and graphics first, the gameplay in both obviously has to be solid but it is not the defining factor for a casual player in my opinion. And as Jack pointed out (I think) the release may HELP chuzzle by courting people to the gameplay that may NOT have looked twice at chuzzle, but are then left wanting more so they search for "sliding row" games and of course Chuzzle is the highest profile one I can think of so you can gain in that way. If someone has played NEITHER of your games, but for whatever reason likes "sliding rows" gamestyle they they will buy based on the THEME and not the gameplay. The fact it is so simliar means you are competing on theme and if people don't like faries they will buy furries and vice -versa. If you could study this over time I am sure that is what would actually happen instead of assuming it will harm your sales. Why would someone buy faries instead of chuzzle other than it's theme? If they wouldn't buy Chuzzle then they wouldn't buy it even if Faries didn't exist.**


So why were the original posts laced with "we don't like seeing clones - they depress us when looking at the future of indie games" instead of cutting to the chase and just coming out with "Hey you have copied our game blatantly, offended us and affected our profits" which would obvioulsy be a private matter and not open to public debate, even though there is as you know little you can do about it.

I suppose I just didn't like being treated like a mug, coheresed into attacking a game or defending another under the pretence of "greater good" from another more successfull developer. It was obvious you were both p*ssed about the issue and clarity would have gone a long way to shutting us long winded types up who were discussing the meta-issue that was dropped into the proceedings and complicating the issue (edit here to remove insinuation that Jason was "lying" - I have no proof of that sorry)

And like Jason in another thread, it makes me feel sad, because right now the indie scene is looking like 1996-1997-- when everyone and his brother came out with a Warcraft clone. But even Warcraft was allowed to finish its earning cycle before being cloned.

Well if it is looking like 96-97 then hopefully we will get another "golden" indie boom like what followed those years again soon, that I can be part of

I promise to try and keep my mouth shut from now on, I know I am probably winding people up with my long posts, I just wanted to make it clear I was neither defending nor attacking either companies games or rights. I was just trying to get to the bottom of the issue, and you have cleared that up for me now - the rest now is just an ethical debate with no conclusion I'm afraid.

[adhominem]

Ok, now I am actually insulted. No one at PopCap is worried that Fairies is going to damage our bottom line. Believe it or not, I >am< concerned about the overall state of the indie games industry. Is there an element of selfishness? Yes. Because we believe that if the casual/indie games community produces fresh, interesting content that will help us in the long run-- either directly, via publishing deals like we had with Chuzzle, or indirectly, by growing the market and getting more people interested in playing these games. Right now the casual games market is a sideshow. It's a tiny fraction of the size of the console/CDROM market, and it shouldn't be, because there are a LOT more people out there who could/would play casual games, if only they knew about them...

This is why we released our framework as free open source. We had lots of suspicious questions when we did, about how there must be some kind of catch or legal snafu, but as you can see for yourself, there isn't: you're free to use our framework to make whatever game you like, including a clone.

What the current thinking is going to do if it continues is annihilate any nascent sense of community in this field. Ask yourself this: if you had a good original game idea right now, mocked up in a prototype form but not completed, how comfortable would you be posting it in the indiegamer forums? Would you suspect-- rightly-- that rather than getting constructive feedback and criticism you'd instead be giving a bunch of people a headstart in ripping you off? Have you noticed that this is already the case-- none of the more experienced players here would dare post a game in development for fear of instant plagiarism?

Does this strike you as a good way for the fragmented, relatively tiny indies to unify into a more powerful and creative group? Or as a way to force the community to become increasingly paranoid, cut-throat, and suspicious? You're right that there are lots of other industries where this is already the case... but is it really inevitable for such a young and promising field as casual games to follow suit?

[Sharpfish]

Originally Posted by adhominem

Ok, now I am actually insulted.

And Emmanual is what, jubilent over what you posted?

No one at PopCap is worried that Fairies is going to damage our bottom line.

Yeah, I know - we know how rich you are and how much pentration you have in the market, the thing is John said he was worried about that, it is like having two discussion at once round here.

Believe it or not, I >am< concerned about the overall state of the indie games industry. Is there an element of selfishness? Yes. Because we believe that if the casual/indie games community produces fresh, interesting content that will help us in the long run-- either directly, via publishing deals like we had with Chuzzle, or indirectly, by growing the market and getting more people interested in playing these games. Right now the casual games market is a sideshow. It's a tiny fraction of the size of the console/CDROM market, and it shouldn't be, because there are a LOT more people out there who could/would play casual games, if only they knew about them...

Fair enough. But why post that convieniently in a thread of a game that is competing with a title by yourselves and not just make a new thread to discuss it in?

If the worry was really so long term, then why a knee-jerk reaction instead of a considered, well balanced aproach to what you were trying to say? Just like John has now said why he wasn't happy and we can see his points, if you state your real worries in the correct context then we can remove them from any possible suspicions of trying to "look down your nose" at a fellow developer or a "rally call to stand against it" (When it suits you). If that is what you think then I am 100% with you. I too want to see a massive change in indie games and more innovation and I am trying to do my bit (slowly) - If a company like yours would do more of this you could possibly help broaden the market for us to follow? (And I mean this in a good way - because you are so influential).

Are you interested in everyone else being guinea pigs until "the time is right"? Seriously, no insinuations, I would just like to know.

This is why we released our framework as free open source. We had lots of suspicious questions when we did, about how there must be some kind of catch or legal snafu, but as you can see for yourself, there isn't: you're free to use our framework to make whatever game you like, including a clone.

Yeah, PCap framework was a boost to the indie developers who use it, a nice gift - I still think there is more to any company (that is as large as yours) releasing ANYTHING for free with concrete reasons and explanations to the directors therefore there must be some far reaching reason, maybe it is to try an make people rely on older technolgy to hold them back? Maybe the market is moving to completely new areas (that your vast data tells you) and you want to distract people?

PLEASE understand these are just things a suspcious mind could think, and not actual accusations. What they do show is that the PCap framework really has no place in a discussion like this if we don't know all the facts (and I am sure we don't).

What the current thinking is going to do if it continues is annihilate any nascent sense of community in this field. Ask yourself this: if you had a good original game idea right now, mocked up in a prototype form but not completed, how comfortable would you be posting it in the indiegamer forums? Would you suspect-- rightly-- that rather than getting constructive feedback and criticism you'd instead be giving a bunch of people a headstart in ripping you off? Have you noticed that this is already the case-- none of the more experienced players here would dare post a game in development for fear of instant plagiarism?

I agree - and that is common sense. I certainly have posted nothing on over 6 prototypes of games I am working on, I don't want to give anyone the headstart on ripping me off, again this is a seperate issue. You know since Bejweleed was released that people having been cloning games (Esp pop cap ones) so I can't understand WHY NOW you decide to make a stand on it. Anyway, I wouldn't even advise anyone to post a FEEDBACK thread on here after the game is released these days as invariably it disolved into a discussion about how someone hates that genre, casual games, breakout clones or other such stuff that has no place in a feedback thread supposedly visited by professionals.

Does this strike you as a good way for the fragmented, relatively tiny indies to unify into a more powerful and creative group? Or as a way to force the community to become increasingly paranoid, cut-throat, and suspicious? You're right that there are lots of other industries where this is already the case... but is it really inevitable for such a young and promising field as casual games to follow suit?

Well - you said CASUAL games there. Before you were saying "indie games in general" were headed for the void, which is what I was contesting, I have no doubts that casual games are stagnating and that is no concern of mine, so if that is your area of discussion I will bow out

As for paranoia - I agree we WILL head more towards that (I am paranoid as hell reading these forums lately) but that is something we will all have to adapt to as the market gets stronger and more competitive. The point is, same as I asked John.. what can we DO about it? I don't want to see ANYONE being "ripped off", and I don't want to see endless clones being wheeled out - but why lament it when we have the power ourselves to change it? Why not get that team of yours to branch into new genres and broaden the acceptence of all kinds of games. It is your games that have played a massive part in creating the situation we have to day, so it is no good talking to small devs like myself, or even Fun pause themselves (who are no threat to Popcap at this stage) about it but take action instead.

I just do not know how you could find solutions to this other than goodwill - and in business goodwill won't get you far (unless you have a lot of money
and reputation to secure the good will with).

Anyway, Jason, again - I hope you realise all this debate is nothing personal towards you or popcap - I am often mentioning how good chuzzle is (And I also like astropop) and can see how well you have done and respect that. Check out the "I hate casual games" thread that started recently where some of us, including me, were on the same side as yourselves. And we don't even make "casual" games!

So, I guess publishing my game @ popcap is out of the question now then

[HairyTroll]

Originally Posted by adhominem

Does this strike you as a good way for the fragmented, relatively tiny indies to unify into a more powerful and creative group? Or as a way to force the community to become increasingly paranoid, cut-throat, and suspicious? You're right that there are lots of other industries where this is already the case... but is it really inevitable for such a young and promising field as casual games to follow suit?

There is money involved. Making a straight clone of something that has proven to sell is easy money. I think that answers your question. Take the fashion industry for example: Factories in some third world country are already producing cheap knock-offs a couple of days after some big name designer has a fashion show.

[luggage]

I think the portals themselves should take a chunk of the respsonsibility for the way the market is going. If a game is considered too close to an existing game they could just refuse to take it. People would soon have second thoughts on writing a quick clone if they knew a portal wouldn't take it.

Unfortunately there's money to be made from it so I can't really see that happening.

[HairyTroll]

Originally Posted by luggage

I think the portals themselves should take a chunk of the respsonsibility for the way the market is going. If a game is considered too close to an existing game they could just refuse to take it....

Unfortunately there's money to be made from it so I can't really see that happening.

The portals want content to sell; and a sale is a sale, it doesn't matter if the customer buys Quake II, or Text Mode Quake II.

[luggage]

Therein lies the problem. A sale is a sale. Do you spend 6 months writing an original and shiny new style of game? Or spend a couple of months knocking up a clone of the current seller?

For people who want to make money the choice is easy - especially as the portals are more than happy to sell it.

Basically you're asking people to not earn money the 'easy' way but rather take the much bigger risk. Would be interesting to see sales figures for something like Gish compared to Luxor.

[Robert Cummings]

Emmanuel isn't supposed to be happy: atlantis isn't as good as luxor, and luxor is derivative of zuma. Luxor deserves to exist because it actually makes some effort to be different and does play differently to Zuma despite the identical formula.

Both faries and atlantis are parasitic: they add nothing and are made purely for gain. This isn't any good for the indie industry but it is good for the gamer that likes that sort of thing, and of course, his bank balance.

He simply doesn't have the balls to make an original game at this point and if money is his goal then I cannot blame him: he is simply making a living.

Please do not presume everyone has to embark on a righteous crusade of originality as for some people it is a Job.


Personally I would like to mix business with pleasure and make my game my Living, but for that to happen I have to be careful about what I make. I promise I'll never do a straight clone, that is, whatever I make will have the ambition of being a Good Game that adds to the original formula.

[papillon]

... Fairies does play differently than Chuzzle. Not as differently as one might like, perhaps. Maybe the locking rule was taken a little too directly. But it DOES have changes and the experience I get from playing it is different, especially on the 'emotional' level, which is, of course, harder to quantify.

I believe I stated here once before that Chuzzle feels like that 'game' on the Next Generation episode - "It practically plays itself!" So easy, and yet such a big direct rush of pleasure from the bright colors and shiny effects of winning a level. It's e-crack. It's addictive. It's cute. But it makes me feel like my brain is MELTING. Much like Bejeweled does. I feel guilty for playing it for very long, like I'm making myself dumber.

It has tricks to keep you going, at least in the download version. (Please correct me if I am getting the details wrong, it's been a while since I played the download.) There are the 'trophies' you unlock for doing various special things. This is cool and makes you feel special. However, you do not have any way of knowing ahead of time what will unlock a trophy. So you can't TRY to get one... you can only keep playing, doing different things, and hoping something special will eventually happen. Again, sucked into a long endless road of shiny, shiny colors and pleasure bursts and MELTING BRAIN.

Fairies' tight time limits and mission structure with REAL goals (unlocking the pictures) instead of just moving to the next world makes the play experience feel very different. AFAIK there are no random trophy-type things to discover. You are not encouraged to zone out into a blissful groovy trance of bright colors. There is more challenge - and I don't remember Chuzzle having much in the way of 'powerup' type items? Unless I've forgotten them?

(And it's got the silly Memory mode added as well.)

There are differences. "Adds Nothing" is a bit too harsh.


As for Atlantis... I disliked it when it came out, I found it unfun and far inferior to Luxor, and was sort of depressed that it apparently sold well... THAT game felt like a lame clone with no heart, and seemed to be proof that a lame clone made fast with polished graphics would outsell an original idea every time. It made me sad.

Fairies *has* the things I complained about the lack of in Atlantis. And, well, fairies. Put fairies in your games, guys, and I will advocate for the rest of you too! (Just kidding.... I expect unicorns next.)


(I had an idea for a sliding-rows game once a long time ago, but it was nothing like Chuzzle or Fairies, and would probably have been a big flop, being much harder/more complicated than the simple casual flash puzzles but too boring and simple for people who want to actually involve their brains Imagine a mix of color-matching, row-pushing, and tetris. Yeah. I never went very far with this idea.)

[Ricardo C]

He simply doesn't have the balls to make an original game

Well, Jason's been officially out-Jason'd. I hope, for your sake, that you don't intend to be the public face of your company.

Funny thing, the first time I saw Chuzzle I thought "nice Maui Wowie clone, there".

[cliffski]

Originally Posted by adhominem

What the current thinking is going to do if it continues is annihilate any nascent sense of community in this field. Ask yourself this: if you had a good original game idea right now, mocked up in a prototype form but not completed, how comfortable would you be posting it in the indiegamer forums? Would you suspect-- rightly-- that rather than getting constructive feedback and criticism you'd instead be giving a bunch of people a headstart in ripping you off? Have you noticed that this is already the case-- none of the more experienced players here would dare post a game in development for fear of instant plagiarism?

This is sadly true. I don't intend showing off my new game until its in the beta stage. Personally I've found it more profitable to try and be original. Cloning someone elses game just doesn't appeal on an intellectual, moral or financial basis to me. I'm even a bit wary of cloning myself, Lots of people assume I'll do Democrcay 2, maybe I will at some stage, but its at least 2 projects away right now.
I agree that the broad scope of software patents are bad, but when someone rips you off to the extent of advertising a game as an 'X' clone, thats pretty bad. Its one of the few situations where I'd be tempted to try and get a lawyer involved. People should be rewarded for the time they spend researching whats a playable game concept. With dev times for casual games so short, being first to market doesnt make enough, especially with the flatter sales curves of indie games. of course if you make a real involved game (like Democracy) its way harder to clone, so theres some natural defence there I guess.

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by luggage

Or maybe.. "if you don't want me to sleep with your girlfriend then you shouldn't have come to a swinger's party"
(nb. that's not from experience. honest.)

Haha!

But yeah that's my point. You might spend a month tweaking exactly how a tile swaps to get just the right responsiveness. But if the game in general still has a fairly simplistic gameplay, then it's not going to be hard for someone to come along and quickly reverse engineer your work. That's the nature of making a puzzle game.

If you don't want people to easily reap off your development efforts, then make a game that's harder for people to quickly replicate. You don't see a ton of Hamsterball clones everywhere because it has a higher barrier to entry. A developer would have to know to how program in 3D, create 3D assets, and design new levels. All of which aren't easy. If they were to copy your exact level designs, just about anyone who bought the original wouldn't bother with the direct-clone because the design isn't is as abstract as most puzzle games.

Well, Jason's been officially out-Jason'd. I hope, for your sake, that you don't intend to be the public face of your company.

I think it's clear Jason is just speaking his personal opinion. No need to try to make his comments represent Popcap's.

[Robert Cummings]

Quote:
He simply doesn't have the balls to make an original game


Well, Jason's been officially out-Jason'd. I hope, for your sake, that you don't intend to be the public face of your company.

HUH? The entire post I made is referring to Emmanuel and Atlantis -not- popcap. Please read it again and find yourself corrected. Nor am I insulting Emmanuel. Clearly you've taken it out of context for your own personal entertainment and to throw me in a bad light. That speaks volumes about the person you are.

I am not referring to popcap or Jason. I am referring to Emmanuel's atlantis/faries. You have also taken it out of context.

[soniCron]

Originally Posted by Robert Cummings

Clearly you've taken it out of context for your own personal entertainment and to throw me in a bad light. That speaks volumes about the person you are.

It sucks when people do that...doesn't it?

[Robert Cummings]

I don't understand your post as I couldn't see any evidence of this taking place. You come across like a complete moron at the best of times, Sonicron and I have no hesitation in telling you this. Have a nice day.

[luggage]

Originally Posted by Ricardo C

Well, Jason's been officially out-Jason'd. I hope, for your sake, that you don't intend to be the public face of your company.

I think this is basically saying that whereas Jason's post could be construed as a bit of an attack at Emmanuel saying someone "hasn't got the balls" to do something is even more of an attack.

[Mike Boeh]

Well it went on for a few days without the dreaded lock. But I think everyone has made their point and it has degraded into a tit-for-tat discussion with no real new points being made.