iOS Game Takes Mario Knockoffs to The Next Level

[AzrealMaximillion]

A shady developer, for instance, could just rip the textures from an existing game and use it in his own.

You say that like it's a bad thing

I support communist, so perhaps my ideals for society don't align with many others', making it hard for us to see eye to eye.

I fail to see how communism and letting people make inferior clones of established ideas corroborate with on another.

As @cookyt has already said, what you've described is a Laissez-faire market, which in itself is probably the truest form of free market capitalism.

What allowing everyone to create knock-offs would do is bring down the value of the original product to such a low degree that it would become no longer profitable to purchase an original.

In a perfect world, allowing people to make knock offs willy nilly would be great if the vast majority of knock offs were made better than the original product. The problem with the Laissez-faire system is that people don't do that. They instead make the product as cheap as possible and hinge on the hope that the familiar idea will help them make a profit.

Most people would rather have a good original product over a barely functioning copy. Now I admit that copyright laws need a massive reconstruction, but letting everyone make a cheap copy of everything isn't the way to do it.

 

[FantomOmega]

They should of gone with the whole psychotic plumber who hunts down his foes and gets their power from wearing their skin angle..

Oh god, I just thought of the Tanooki Suit

The horror, THE HORROR!

 

[OniaPL]

I doubt people would have much drive to create anything original anymore if everyone would be able to take the fruit of the original guys work and profit off it. The original inventor would never get a dime when the consumers would just wait for the 100 knockoffs to roll to the market and pick what's the best.

 

[Olas]

snip

So you think that people should be able to change a few things and make money off of other people work while only doing a little themselves?

Yes. I do. I believe in a truly free market, where individuals have choice and the only way to ensure you, as a business, are making money, is to offer your product or service better than everyone else. No more cornering the market or locking down a patent to bring in the money.

In this example, if someone can give me Mario cheaper, faster or otherwise better, they win. Nintendo couldn't simply rely on them being the only ones allowed to sell "Mario." I don't like Mario, so it's a bit of a shitty example, but you get the idea. 360 red-ring? Another company will make ones that don't. Bad EA customer service? Another company will give you the same product with better attitudes. Etc., etc.

You sound like Ayn Rand on drugs. What's the incentive for anyone to try and produce a Mario Game anymore if it will just get ripped off by someone else. The free market can never work if basic property rights are not enforced, that's econ 101.

 

[Olas]

Because no one ever makes anything if they aren't going to make billions of dollars or be the only ones to do it, amirite.

Heads up: open your comment with a inane jab and be prepared to be thoroughly ignored from then on.

So.... what, developers should just go out of their way creating games for us out of the goodness of their heart? When they have absolutely no clue whether they'll make even a dime of their work? It's not about whether they can still make billions or millions or any specific amount of money, it's about fairness and rewarding engenuity and creativity over theivery and forgery.
And no, your system flat out would not work. I imagine 90% of gaming developers would either go out of business, or switch to some other market that they could actually function as a business in. I find socialism/communism to be a cute ideal, and in a world of pure angels it might be a sustainable system, but we live in the real world.

 

[RandomMan01]

snip

So you think that people should be able to change a few things and make money off of other people work while only doing a little themselves?

Yes. I do. I believe in a truly free market, where individuals have choice and the only way to ensure you, as a business, are making money, is to offer your product or service better than everyone else. No more cornering the market or locking down a patent to bring in the money.

In this example, if someone can give me Mario cheaper, faster or otherwise better, they win. Nintendo couldn't simply rely on them being the only ones allowed to sell "Mario." I don't like Mario, so it's a bit of a shitty example, but you get the idea. 360 red-ring? Another company will make ones that don't. Bad EA customer service? Another company will give you the same product with better attitudes. Etc., etc.

You sound like Ayn Rand on drugs. What's the incentive for anyone to try and produce a Mario Game anymore if it will just get ripped off by someone else. The free market can never work if basic property rights are not enforced, that's econ 101.

Because no one ever makes anything if they aren't going to make billions of dollars or be the only ones to do it, amirite.

Heads up: open your comment with a inane jab and be prepared to be thoroughly ignored from then on.

Here's a good example. Let's say you have an idea for a new invention. You work tirelessly for years to perfect the design. You finally get it out there, and it's a success. But then, some shady "inventor", figures out how you built it, and makes an exact replica. The only thing he did that is diffrent was attach an extra device (that does next to nothing), thereby making it a better quality machine, even though it is still your design. He renames it, markets it for less money, and makes a fortune off of your hard work. Now, according to what you've been saying, he should be allowed to do that, even though it was all (except for the extra device), all your work.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It's a good thing I never said anything about inferior clones.

Offer your product or service better than everyone else.

Point missed. See, we already have a country on this planet that has a market that you've described. Its called China. You may not have said anything about inferior clones, but that's the kind of clone that is going to be made. If you have to resources to make a clone that is better than the original idea, why not create an original or even similar idea instead of a clone?

Most clones are poor in quality, this is not disputable.

And? What about being original is more important than better products and service for the customer? You made a statement and didn't actually say why that matters. Answer: because it doesn't.

I guess I'll have to spoon feed you all the answers then. Being original, especially in these days, is a testament to the dedication that you have to give your customer the best product you can in a certain way. Being stagnant is view negatively.

Look at what happened to Guitar Hero. 23 Spinoffs within 5 years was what killed that craze. Profit wasn't even made off of the franchise due to excessive milkage. Look at how Call of Duty is looked upon now. Making clones of the same product bores customers and pushes them away. Even if the product is functionally great, if its almost exactly the same as its predecessor/original and has been year after year, people tend to grow a negative viewpoint of it. This is why a Laissez-Faire market doesn't work for most products. People always want new things. Originality matter. Similarities are great too, but to say that originality isn't important is foolish.

If the product is bad, people won't buy it. If the product is a success, the people are to blame, as they are the ones that chose to support it. You can't have it both ways, either the market dictates what is good or it doesn't. if they support it, they made that decision. It's the same as the hordes of people complaining now about how bad various video game companies and services are; if you pay for "good enough" you have only yourself to blame. Or would you (the hypothetical you, not actually you) like to blame the "dumb card" and say the market confused you? In which case, give me back your driver's license and never have children.

See, your taking a very instant gratification look at the market. Yes, if the product is bad people will not buy it, but that doesn't help your point. Your not taking into account franchises over time.

My point is that if the product is a clone and not as good, it will not sell. Again, look at Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. People were given the same game over and over again at such a high rate that interest nosedived instead of gradually going down. Call of Duty will eventually no longer be a top selling franchise (to be honest, quicker than people think) because of two different developers making an almost identical game in alternating years. If we had a market that you're describing, you would have a lot more dead products and destroyed companies, which in turn hurts the free market.

Again, nothing about my statement has anything to do with "cheap knockoffs." You're creating a straw man and you are failing at it.

Nope, your just neglecting the way that humans have done things over the years I guess. You assume that if we had a Laissez-Faire market, people would make high quality clones all the time. As we have seen just be looking at China as well as companies outsourcing to other countries, that's not the way people do things. The bulk of clones these days are inferior. Your theory doesn't work, never has, never will. If my points are "straw man" points, your theory is a burning pile of hay.

You neglect to factor in the human nature of the capitalistic market and that's what makes allowing everyone to copy ideas not feasible.

 

[Mumorpuger]

"It's-a me, Mark!"

 

[Lunar Templar]

Zynga should sue

ripping people off whole sale is they're job

 

[LordBongo]

Congratulations, Boudica. You've hit a personal spot and now I feel obligated to add my two cents. Here goes:

My professional field is graphic design. It's a job that seems to be viewed as easy, useless, or deserving of little reward by most people. The biggest problem is that most people just don't seem to understand all of the hard work that goes into something as simple-looking as, let's say, a logo. We spend days, weeks, months, sometimes even years just researching everything we possibly can about the client's company and the people they are targeting. We spend countless hours sketching and scrapping ideas in an attempt to find that one perfect one. It's not JUST the logo either, we most likely also have to design stationery, signage, maybe even a whole new advertising campaign. It takes a huge amount of work, and it's all towards developing a brand. As designers, we also require a LOT of training in order to think and see things the way we're supposed to. It takes years to develop a good eye for graphic and spatial aesthetics.

The logo and branding is finally completed after all that work, and the new campaign goes live. It's a hit, and the client gathers in waves of new customers. The brand becomes synonymous with that company. All is well.

Now, let's say this free market of yours exists. Any person can look at the branding and say, "We have a similar company, but they're getting all of the customers. Let's do the same thing they're doing!" Next thing you know, this other company uses the same colours, the same typefaces, the same style, and the same personality as the original branding. They even do a remarkably similar logo. And it took them a few days to assemble everything. Since consumers have come to relate to that branding, they end up stealing business from the client.

We did all the work, did all the research, went through every possible concept until finding just the right one, and someone else just straight-up copied. Not to mention the client would've paid a LOT of money for a redesign of that magnitude, especially if it was from a respected design team.

This is why intellectual properties are important. People generally don't just have these great ideas pop into their head on a whim. I'm sure it does happen, but it's EXTREMELY rare. The same rules and ideas apply to game design. Developers don't just get one idea and roll with it, they have meeting after meeting and bounce ideas around. They do the research. They study the market. They try new things, many of which don't work. They scrap it and try something else. When they finally have their idea, then the game can actually be made.

In creative fields, the term "knowledge is power" is very true. When you copy ideas from other games, you're stealing countless hours of process work. It's not just a matter of actually building the game. I can draw up a logo on my computer in a couple of hours, but the process of getting to that point is always at least 90% of the work.

You may be entitled to your opinion, but opinions CAN be wrong. Remember that.

 

[cookyt]

Are you just typing random words in circles? In one comment you managed to argue against yourself several times, setting up one straw man, knocking it down and then setting up an entirely opposing straw man and knocking that one down, too.

You assume that if we had a Laissez-Faire market, people would make high quality clones all the time.

You may not have said anything about inferior clones

Being stagnant is view negatively. Look at what happened to Guitar Hero. 23 Spinoffs within 5 years was what killed that craze. Profit wasn't even made off of the franchise due to excessive milkage. Look at how Call of Duty is looked upon now.

My point is that if the product is a clone and not as good, it will not sell. Again, look at Guitar Hero and Call of Duty

If the product is bad, people won't buy it.

See right there? How, pray tell, does that infer me saying "people would only make high quality clones all the time"? It doesn't. Because I never said that. People don't buy clones? Call of Duty is a clone? One of the highest selling franchises of all time, people don't buy? It's another example of you saying (typing) words without actually thinking about the argument you are replying to.

I think @AzrealMaximillion has a valid point, but he's not presenting it well enough. To understand it, lets make a few assumptions:

1) Humans have a natural drive to create and refine ideas. We crave novelty and enjoy fixing past mistakes.

2) It takes a significant amount of time and effort to create something novel or better than existing versions.

3) In a capitalistic economy, money provides the primary incentive to create.


Lets say you are a developer who has the resources and the knowhow to create a game. According to assumption 2, your primary incentive is to make money. In a laissez-faire market, you could quickly, easily, and with little cost, produce a copy of an existing game. The game is good, so you can't really hope to compete with it, but you can make a profit. To maximize you profits, you want to minimize your costs. To do this, you hack together the game as quickly as possible, cut corners in design, and don't test except for the most obvious of bugs (play-testing on actual people is out of the question). When the game comes out, it draws a sizable audience of mostly impulse purchases and purchases where the customer buys it by mistake. A couple months later, you can do the same with a different game, and make a profit on that.

Of course, not every developer will think along these lines, but this is the solution with the least risk and a reasonable profit, so naturally a large number of developers will take this route. Lets say that from 1 popular, original game which is published, 99 copies are made. From this maybe 80 to 90 of them are quick cash grabs as described above, and the rest are honest attempts at refining the original formula into something better than the original. So maybe one in every ten games you see which are centered around the original are any good; the rest are wastes of time. If they are all marketed in a similar fashion, then it comes down to chance whether a consumer plays a decent version of the game or not.

The audience targeted by the developers of the good versions doesn't typically take risks with the games they buy, and would rather wait for word of mouth to tell them whether the game is worth it. This is how cult classics like Psychonauts are born. They are good games, but they don't usually make enough money to warrant their existence because of assumption 2: it takes money and time to do things right. Even worse is the possibility that the studio who developed these good games might fold by the time enough copies are sold to satisfy development costs.

The market targeted by the other 80 to 90 developers, however, is one of impulse. The developers are likely to make back their initial investment plus a small profit just on these buys alone because development costs are so low. As such, they will continue making inferior copies. Overall, the market becomes saturated with cheap copies while the people who put time and effort are forced out of the business.

That's not to say a free market fails every time. Let's get rid of assumption 3, so that money is no longer an incentive to produce. Now, the only reason for people to come up with ideas is the intrinsic human drive to do so. Any developer who was focused before on creating cheap knock offs for profit can now instead work on improving existing ideas or creating novel ones. Now, instead of 100 copies of one game running around, you get maybe 10 really good versions of the same game, and 90 completely different games with widely varying ideas behind them. What's more, since the games are no longer competing directly against each other, some developers might decide to partner up to deliver a larger experience than would have otherwise been possible. This sort of thing exists in the current world: look at Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) like Linux, or big global projects like Wikipedia, or even the mountains of mods created by the community. They all show that it is possible to have a free market where unique, interesting things happen all the time.

Great things can be accomplished under this model, but it's not a cure-all solution. People still need to eat and pay bills. There aren't enough resources to go around, so we came up with the Capitalistic market. It's not perfect, but it's the best way we currently have of doing this. It's goal is to reward people who contribute to society as a whole (with the hope that they will continue to do so), and to punish people who are detrimental (in hopes they will stop). Maybe if we all had Star Trek style replicators, we could do away with it and live in a world where everything works like a free market - a global community of people creating new and interesting things every day, but it's not feasible today.

That's why I believe the laissez-faire market you suggest wouldn't work. In the short run, it might be somewhat successful, but in the long run, it'll tend to collapse on itself due to assumption 3.

Good god, that was longer than I expected it to be!

 

[cookyt]

Snip

I can understand where you're coming from; I'm a programmer.

I remember there being an economic term for the types of goods we produce. I can't remember what it was, but the basic idea is that to produce it takes a large initial investment, but each subsequent sale comes at a relatively low cost. These are things like music, computer programs, books, and, in your case, graphics.

I think copyright laws are almost exclusively written for these types of goods. After all, if it's easy for the producer to sell a copy of the initial good, what's to stop some other person looking for a quick buck from doing it?

 

[shrekfan246]

Which means that no one invents anything, not because they're greedy, but because they are broke.

You are far, far, far too focused on money. That's one of the problems with this society; we are driven to work ourselves into a shiny grave, to spend three quarters of our life working towards one quarter of living. Worse yet, most people genuinely believe there is no other option, that life simply works that way.

I've news for you, most every major invention ever, was brought about by need, not through greed. From the light bulb to the syringe (both of which were invented by people that never got rich from their creation), we make things because we want them. It's only in the capitalist cesspit that greed and not human spirit drives creation.

So I assume that means you're not working right now, right? At least, not for money. And you sustain yourself all by your own means, completely off the grid with your own power supply, growing your own food and pumping your own water? Sewing your own clothes, building your own appliances and electronics completely from scratch with no pre-built components? Making your own medicine for when you get sick, refining your own materials to use as bandages? Creating your own entertainment, such as games or reading, to pass whatever free time you might have after all of the daily work you must need to do just to upkeep your home?

Stop derailing this news post.

OT: When I saw what looks like 'blond' hair scribbled onto his head in the screenshots, I was incredibly afraid. The entire thing looks a bit 'uncanny valley' weird, to be frank.

 

[duchaked]

anyone got a picture of that god of warriors bit mentioned? (it's not appearing in the itunes store for me) or I guess y'all are too busy arguing with a communist about something idk lol fun fun