Zynga Clones Tiny Tower
(38 posts) (25 voices)-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
Not really sure how I feel about this sort of thing. It's not illegal, but I dunno if I'd consider it unethical or not. (I'd certainly describe it as shady though) At what point does copying change from ripping off a specific game to making a new game in a certain genre? As someone who's never actually played a Zynga type game (including Tiny Tower), isn't Tiny Tower's gameplay like exactly like Zynga's games except that it's about a tower?
How different do games need to be in order to be unique? How many games could you make similar charts for and nobody would care? A whole crap-ton of indie games are just "[existing game] with a twist!" or "[existing game] with zombies!". There are a ton of WWII or sci-fi shooter games and most of them are not very different from each other at all. Like quite seriously, exact same gameplay and setting with some trivial contrived plot tacked on. Shooters like that are just considered a genre though. I've definitely seen it happen a few times where something that is now simple considered a genre started with one game, and they were quite upset when copied for the first time. Puzzle Bobble/Snood/etc or Puzzloop/Zuma/etc. Mario clone and Doom clone also used to be pretty common terms for anything that was a platformer or fps. Another example, you know the game where you remove blocks one by one until you get a special one safely on the ground? The guy that made the first one of those used to post on the TIGSource forums, and was super pissed when flash and iPhone clones started to pop up. It happened so fast that I think a lot of people simply thought of it as a new genre of games that appeared rather suddenly. They were all basically the same, save for the art or a slight twist here or there. Indies understandably get a lot more upset when they are being "ripped off by the big guy", but the entire game industry works this way. Big companies and indies alike all copy something they like or what they see is already successful. How many of the games here are blatant copies? I would say most of them.
You really really don't want laws that allow people to make wishy washy comparisons between two IPs and say that they infringe. Otherwise Zynga might have been able to make the argument that Tiny Tower copied their gameplay and just made it about towers. Any laws you could try to make to help protect the "little guy" you could very easily create a big ani-competitive weapon instead that big companies would be able to use more effectively by hiring more lawyers. They can already do this, but it doesn't need to be made easier for them.
Posted 4 months ago # -
letmeknow
MemberI played some games like Tiny Towers in flash years before I had my first iPhone... the design might be different but the ideas are similar... 95% of current Appstore/Android market games concepts/ideas can be found in flash games made years before the first launch on iPhone ....
"That is my own idea, I never know any similar games...." , you can say like that.. fine, but trust me, you are not the first one who has such idea.
Posted 4 months ago # -
CodeMonkey
MemberIt is an interesting question. I'm not unsympathetic to Nimblebits position.
Still, where do you draw the line. I think you definetly own your code and your actual artwork. Can you own a genre?
Can someone say Tiny Towers is really just SimCity stacked vertically (Note: I haven't actually played it, just an example)?
Can Doom say every FPS is just copying them? Yes and no.
How many racing games are there? How many games are you in a car driving around a track. Are those clones?
Still, thats a funny marketing tactic. Thats fair too IMHO. ;o)
I guess in the end, for me, it comes down to this:
If they copy it and its exactly the same or crappier, then its a clone.
If they copy it but improve it and make it better, then its the evolution of a genre.
LoL.
Posted 4 months ago # -
cocosbean
Member@cocos2dDeveloper: Lol
Posted 4 months ago # -
Doodle jump, Angry birds, cut the rope, tiny wings, none of these are truly original but they stood out at the time against the thousands of other clones that hadn't had the same amount of care or attention put into them.
Posted 4 months ago # -
If I were NimbleBit, I would wait and see how this far too close to 1:1 clone fares, then threaten to sue and maybe get nice settlement hush money.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Hey guys,
As you might know I work for Zynga. So, as the cocos2d lead developer and also as Zynga employee, I wanted to let you know what I am doing.
My job at Zynga is developing technology (engines), including further developing cocos2d. Sometimes I know what we are building on top of cocos2d, sometimes I don't.
My role as cocos2d lead developer was, is , and will continue to be the same: further develop cocos2d. I will continue to add features, help people in the community, fix bugs, write news about games (from Zynga, from Nimble Bit and any other cocos2d game that it is worth mentioning), etc.Posted 4 months ago # -
@abitofcode RIGHT! Execution is key with anything you do. I understand how I would feel if I were a part of nimble bit but I am not really all that worried for them. They have a really nice game that I have spent HOURS playing (including my whole family). If Zynga can improve upon the idea then I might worry more but a straight clone? I don't know why I would choose Zynga's over Nimble Bit.
Posted 4 months ago # -
In case dream Heights is a rip off from Tiny Towers, then every FPS is a rip off from Castle Wolfenstein, and while nimblebit try to access it with a bit of sarcasm, they do not hit a funny note. In stead they sound a bit like a couple of spoiled school kids. ( I could have written something funny AND sarcastic, just so that you all know )
But the laws of Darwin applies even to iOS programming, and at the end of the day, the better game will win.
There recently has been a large discussion in Danish news media, that copyright actually is a bad thing. It does not mean that it should be allowed to copy or steal, but the basic argument is, that everybody would be better of ( even the original artist ), if there were much less copyright. It is a bit ridiculous, that an image freely available to everybody on the internet, cant be used in ex a game. If the dude don't want us to see or use it, then don't make it freely available.
Posted 4 months ago # -
It's not quite so cut-and-dry. In order to sell licenses to an image, the artist must advertise the image. If they have to keep the image secret, and only show it to someone who asks to see it under NDA, they wouldn't get many sales and prospective buyers would find it much more difficult and time consuming to source material for their games/programs/shows/whatever. Everybody loses.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Im not saying its easy, but copyrights as it is now, are outdated.
There are plenty of ways to protect your work other than relying on an "impossible to enforce" copyright scheme, so I don't think your point is valid.If you have a system which makes everybody a criminal, then you should not blame everybody. You should blame the system.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Implicit copyright is your friend. Patent system (more specifically software patents) is not.
Posted 4 months ago # -
ziekke
MemberI believe that the amount one game needs to differ from another, when they are very similar in either genre or presentation is inversely proportional to how much more fun the newer game is.
There are other factors, surely, but all inherently subjective (short of carbon-copying a game).
It's worth mentioning that, regardless of our personal opinions, Zynga has filed suit against a company who has copied their games (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/farmville-dev-zynga-files-suit-against-vostu-over-copycat-games/). So Zynga themselves have already admitted that it's inappropriate to copy another developers ideas so blatantly.
Posted 4 months ago # -
For images I think some kind of watermarking would do.
Apart from that, the whole idea of taking a discussion up on copyrights could be much more than that, ex that certain parts of the internet needed better personal authentication, so that misuse could be tracked. A lot of other internet areas would benefit from this also.Posted 4 months ago # -
"For images I think some kind of watermarking would do."
And if someone who purchased the full, non-watermarked image were to publish it elsewhere so that others could use it without payment to the original creator?
"ex that certain parts of the internet needed better personal authentication, so that misuse could be tracked."
I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting mandatory, personally identifiable authentication in places on the internet where the illegally copied work might end up?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Martin
Member@riq: no worries, that's exactly what I thought. Nice to see an official statement from you though.
I don't think zynga can be sued for this and I don't think it should be. We would end up with the biggest companies sueing everyone that makes games in "their" genre and it wouldn't be good for the evolution of digital games.
But those thoughts aside I find zyngas move to be super laaaaaaaaame! They have tons of resources and instead of pushing the evolution of games they choose to rip off.Posted 4 months ago # -
I think the problem would be hundreds and hundreds of times smaller, if the image only could be distributed by someone who actually bought it. Make a personally signed image format if that it what it takes. Besides that, I am not suggesting that stealing is okay, just that, if you put an image up for half the world to watch, it is not a realistic scenario to tell them all "this is watching only ... naughty naughty".
I don't think you honestly think I am suggesting that. Criminals distributing content which is not public available, should be prosecuted. But we have the technology to make the internet both a safer and better place.
A small step would be that ex porn is on XXX domains only. Next step could be, that if you enter ART domains, you ex need an authenticated internet profile. And don't just take my word for it. The free (ab)use of the internet is a thing in decline. Today, on most newspapers and fora, you need to log in ( contrary to just a few years ago ), and I bet you, that there is not going to be less restrictions tomorrow.Posted 4 months ago # -
"I think the problem would be hundreds and hundreds of times smaller, if the image only could be distributed by someone who actually bought it."
Actually, it would be much, much worse, since another company could take your work, aggregated with a bunch of other purloined works, and sell them at a fraction of your price because they have the volume to make a profit on such a scheme. And with no copyright, you'd have no recourse to shutting them down, especially if the image passed between multiple parties before falling into possession of the company (who may not even be aware that the work was sold to them without permission, and wouldn't need to care if it was brought to their attention anyway).
"Make a personally signed image format if that it what it takes."
There is no stenanographic system that can't be circumvented. Technology can't prevent copying by the determined.
With contract law, you could put in the terms that the person buying is not to pass the work onto a third party, but if someone DID, you'd have no way of knowing WHO out of the many buyers did it. Furthermore, you'd have no way of compelling the company selling your work to stop if they didn't buy from you and agree to the licensing terms.
"I don't think you honestly think I am suggesting that."
I don't know what you're suggesting at all. That was my best guess.
"Next step could be, that if you enter ART domains, you ex need an authenticated internet profile."
How would that protect a content creator from theft of his work? Once the work passes to a third party, you're out of luck. With no way to track which user passed the work on, you have no way to link the 3rd party to the theft. Furthermore, theft wouldn't even be a concept here since it's a breach of contract, for which a 3rd party bears no responsibility to you.
Posted 4 months ago # -
The controversy rages on! http://imgur.com/ajaYt
"Dear NimbleBit," arg lol.
Posted 4 months ago # -
@Karl
I really can not be bothered with quoting ( I am SO much beyond that ;)The internet is the internet, and my opinion is, that whatever you make public to half the world, half the world should be allowed to use to whatever they desire.
Any game idea, any image, and any song, you can find on the internet, you should be allowed to use in whatever project you have. That is my belief.If you do not want it to be that way, there is plenty of technology available to restrict your use. That is a proven fact, even if I have no idea what stenanographic means.
Posted 4 months ago # -
If they are doing this as a way of marketing their (already very popular) game, then I'm cool with it. Pretty cheeky :)
It IS obvious that Zynga copied the gameplay, but that isn't and shouldn't be a crime. If they are actually whining, then well, boo-hoo they might get a little less money to throw on their huge pile.
Posted 3 months ago # -
letmeknow
Memberdrumcowski (from http://imgur.com/ajaYt) is right, starting at Armorgames or Kongregate to find tons of 'Inspirations", however it's not a new idea, everyone does....
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.