Jimquisition: EA versus Zynga - The Lesser of Two Evils

[Nilsenator]

So that's what Jim looks like when he does the Willem Dafoe-voice.

 

[Signa]

That's not at all what The Ville was though (or so what I'm assuming from the comparison screens I saw). The Ville was basically 50 Shade of Gray in your analogy.

No, because the only thing 50 Shades of Gray has in common with Twilight is absolutely nothing. It was meant to be a fanfiction with the characters from Twilight but it's *not* Twilight, and it deviated from it's parent universe when the names were changed.

Zynga doesn't even bother changing their games too much. Remember the Tiny Tower incident? They photocopy games.

You wouldn't like if I did what Zynga is doing to your creations and make money of them.

No I wouldn't, but I wouldn't sue either. I'd be making a superior product because I'd actually be making it with my own imagination, and not just struggling to keep up because I was copying someone else.

I think my argument would change if Zynga started copying more complex games, because then you could see actual cloned level designs. But they are copying very simple games where the only gameplay variations are the actual game mechanics. You shouldn't have the ability to own a game mechanic, which is ultimately what EA is suing Zynga for. In the case of The Ville, I saw house building, and sim(ville?) creating. Both are merely gameplay features, and how your character moves through the house is part of the mechanics. EA doesn't own those, and shouldn't ever own them.

 

[ElPatron]

I think my argument would change if Zynga started copying more complex games, because then you could see actual cloned level designs. But they are copying very simple games where the only gameplay variations are the actual game mechanics. You shouldn't have the ability to own a game mechanic, which is ultimately what EA is suing Zynga for. In the case of The Ville, I saw house building, and sim(ville?) creating. Both are merely gameplay features, and how your character moves through the house is part of the mechanics. EA doesn't own those, and shouldn't ever own them.

Tiny Tower. They made a carbon copy of the premise and core mechanics and called it Dream Heights.

The only differences are the social aspect of Dream Heights and some visuals.

And it's easy for you to talk because there is a chance you do not live off your creations. No matter how much I megaloathe the company, those EA employees kind of deserve their money. A job in the gaming industry isn't exactly the most stable thing in the world, specially if you work for EA.

I can't just reverse-engineer a product from another student and present it as mine. How would you feel if your college project was stolen, costing you a master's degree?

 

[Signa]

I think my argument would change if Zynga started copying more complex games, because then you could see actual cloned level designs. But they are copying very simple games where the only gameplay variations are the actual game mechanics. You shouldn't have the ability to own a game mechanic, which is ultimately what EA is suing Zynga for. In the case of The Ville, I saw house building, and sim(ville?) creating. Both are merely gameplay features, and how your character moves through the house is part of the mechanics. EA doesn't own those, and shouldn't ever own them.

Tiny Tower. They made a carbon copy of the premise and core mechanics and called it Dream Heights.

The only differences are the social aspect of Dream Heights and some visuals.

And it's easy for you to talk because there is a chance you do not live off your creations. No matter how much I megaloathe the company, those EA employees kind of deserve their money. A job in the gaming industry isn't exactly the most stable thing in the world, specially if you work for EA.

I can't just reverse-engineer a product from another student and present it as mine. How would you feel if your college project was stolen, costing you a master's degree?

Yes, I know about Tiny Tower. It was a blatant rippoff too. Still, if someone who wasn't Zynga wanted to make a game like Tiny Tower, they damn well should be allowed to. I'd expect them to bring their A-game to the table, and add a few new features, and not make the UI look like a reskin of the old game, but they should be legally allowed. EA suing Zygna could mean that other companies who feel their product is receiving clones could hope to sue and win, crushing any attempt at innovating the genre. I wouldn't support Activision suing EA for making Battlefield 3 too close to Modern Warfare.

 

[Infernai]

I just wanna go on record: That's an insult to the Joker there, Jim. The Joker has style, whereas we know that EA does not. So, find us a flat, boring, stereotypical villain that nobody likes or sympathizes with, and THERE'S YOUR MAN.

So...Lex Luthor then? *Ba-dum-tish*

 

[FalloutJack]

-AGH!-

Curse you and your logic! What are you doing on the internet?!

 

[irishda]

Ugh. "This company is evil." "No, this company is more evil."

More than the complaints about DLC or a game's story, this is the one that grinds me the most. I mean my god, how much of a child do you have to be to think some CEO is sitting up there in Castle Greyskull cackling about "how can we make people who buy our products more miserable?"

This is purely a gamer/computer tech phenomenon. In no other industry do you hear about people saying how evil one company is over another. Some companies have a reputation as lazy or thieving, but no one talks about them being evil unless they're a hippie or counter-culture.

 

[ElPatron]

Still, if someone who wasn't Zynga wanted to make a game like Tiny Tower, they damn well should be allowed to. I'd expect them to bring their A-game to the table, and add a few new features, and not make the UI look like a reskin of the old game, but they should be legally allowed

Guess what? They are.

And what you just described was exactly what Zynga did not do, but had the chance to. They are run by a bunch of lazy cash-grabbers that decided to step on EA's property instead of stealing from small indie devs.

EA suing Zygna could mean that other companies who feel their product is receiving clones could hope to sue and win, crushing any attempt at innovating the genre.

That sort of reminds me of that Zynga reply where they claimed they were actually creative and innovative.

No, this does not become a precedent for look-a-likes because Zynga doesn't only create look-a-likes - it steals intellectual property.

I wouldn't support Activision suing EA for making Battlefield 3 too close to Modern Warfare.

I would, if Battlefield 3 had the same writing as the Modern Warfare campaign, same map design, same create-a-class system, same killstreak system etc etc etc basically the exact same gameplay on a slightly different visual style.

Zynga does not create the Battlefield 3s of Facebook games. They create the "Actual Combat" by making a Modern Warfare clone in disguise.

 

[Signa]

Still, if someone who wasn't Zynga wanted to make a game like Tiny Tower, they damn well should be allowed to. I'd expect them to bring their A-game to the table, and add a few new features, and not make the UI look like a reskin of the old game, but they should be legally allowed

Guess what? They are.

So what are we arguing here? Are you saying that no one should be allowed to copy something if someone else deems it too close? What about additive updates? Could a game surpass the original, only to have the original make a patch to catch up? Would that be plagiarism, or just improving on an existing product?

Basically, by challenging me as you are, you're making me defend Zynga in an effort to defend my take on the situation. Stop. Zygna is no ally to me, but as you just said, they are legally allowed to what they are doing and I'm defending that right. Lines are too blurry in regards to cases of IP theft, so as long as Zynga built their games from the ground up, using no code what-so-ever from the original product, I can not condemn them. If I do, there will be a case someday where someone does build an original product based off of a concept of another product and they will get sued because that's the thing these companies do if their profits are threatened. Even if it means shutting down superior [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.386203-Apple-wins-lawsuit-vs-Samsung] products because they were too lazy to compete.

 

[ElPatron]

Some companies have a reputation as lazy or thieving, but no one talks about them being evil unless they're a hippie or counter-culture.

If they deserve it or not, I don't know, but people do call companies "evil".

>Apple
>Microsoft
>Blackwater/Xe/Academi (nothing against contractors and people in the private security business, but Blackwater has all sorts of legal safeguards so that their crimes are not actually their responsability)
>basically any pharmaceutical company, but Bayer takes the prize


To add insult to injury, Bayer has also been part of IG Farben, the conglomerate that basically owned most of the Zyklon-B production. If you don't know what Zyklon-B is, you're in for a good bedtime reading.

 

[ivc392]

So Zingga and EA are "both arrogants wankers". There just no better word for it... wait! yes there is, "cunts".

I think game critics should either be brits or aussies. American English simply has a much more restrictive vocabulary...

Seriously? is the even real? oh, wait, this is from 1985, never mind...

 

[ElPatron]

Are you saying that no one should be allowed to copy something if someone else deems it too close?

Not "someone". That's what the courts are for.

What about additive updates? Could a game surpass the original, only to have the original make a patch to catch up? Would that be plagiarism, or just improving on an existing product?

If it's exactly the same thing, and that thing is intellectual property (ie. not meaningless stuff such as achievments)

Basically, by challenging me as you are, you're making me defend Zynga in an effort to defend my take on the situation.

Guess what? You're not forced to defend Zynga.

Stop. Zygna is no ally to me, but as you just said, they are legally allowed to what they are doing and I'm defending that right.

Plagiarism is not a right, and it's not legally allowed.

Lines are too blurry in regards to cases of IP theft, so as long as Zynga built their games from the ground up, using no code what-so-ever from the original product, I can not condemn them.

So if I just copy Micheal Jackson's discography but play my own instruments and use my own singer it's okay if I sell it without paying a dime to his family?


If I just build Black Ops 2 from the ground up and called it something else you can't condemn me even if I just ripped off their property?

If I do, there will be a case someday where someone does build an original product based off of a concept of another product and they will get sued

No they won't. I'm no lawyer but what you're saying makes no sense. By your logic, if Zynga wins then we all get the right to steal and rip-off any content we like, which simply isn't true.

Even if it means shutting down superior [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.386203-Apple-wins-lawsuit-vs-Samsung] products because they were too lazy to compete.

BEEEEP. Wrong answer.

Patent laws are a whole different animal. Apple is a "patent troll", if you have problems with it then you have to criticize the patent laws themselves.

 

[octafish]

Miniature Willem Dafoe huh? Guy's in three years, he thinks he's Jesus fucking Christ or something.

[small]I must say in light of The Last Temptation that quote from Red is my favourite from Platoon.[/small]

 

[Signa]

Snip

My argument was airtight. The fact that you dissected it to one-sentence bits shows you are just spouting your opinion and not backing it up with anything. Not even the law that you admits exits.

And patents are protected for the same reason IP is too. Just because there are a different set of laws governing the physical and the non-physical doesn't mean that a company can't sue another based off of bullshit. News flash: they will.

 

[mrhateful]

I think gamers(including myself) hate zynga in a more homophobic way, what they do doesn't affect us but we are disgusted by what they do.

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

I still say EA is the lesser of the two.

By the way, the financial black hole that Zynga is in right now was done on purpose. Crashing the company would make the heads lots and lots of money, and they knew it. And they did.

EA is evil, sure. But I'll gladly take EA over Zynga.

 

[irishda]

Some companies have a reputation as lazy or thieving, but no one talks about them being evil unless they're a hippie or counter-culture.

If they deserve it or not, I don't know, but people do call companies "evil".

>Apple
>Microsoft
>Blackwater/Xe/Academi (nothing against contractors and people in the private security business, but Blackwater has all sorts of legal safeguards so that their crimes are not actually their responsability)
>basically any pharmaceutical company, but Bayer takes the prize


To add insult to injury, Bayer has also been part of IG Farben, the conglomerate that basically owned most of the Zyklon-B production. If you don't know what Zyklon-B is, you're in for a good bedtime reading.

Fair enough, although it only serves to exemplify my point. These companies are called evil for animal experimentation, killing civilians, using overworked-to-the-point-of-suicide employees in a foreign country, or releasing untested drugs.

Video game companies get called evil cause they charged five dollars to unlock something that was already on the disc, or because they made a game for facebook.

 

[Jumplion]

I feel that I disagree with Jim's take on how much effect Zynga really has. He's framing this whole thing as if Zynga and EA live in separate vacuums in their respective game development styles, but that is simply not the case. There is absolutely no possible way that Zynga's business practices could not affect EA, or any other developer/publisher for that matter, and to say anything otherwise is just a complete lie. The games industry does not have vacuums within itself, plenty of things are interconnected. Social gaming is much more widespread and impacts us more directly because people use these social networks more than they really actively buy a single game or two.

People hating on Zynga is more than just them making "eeeeeeevill!!!" casual games, it's about their extremely illicit business practices, trouble use of psychology to wring out money from people effectively that whets the appetite of more publishers, and their extremely troubling practice of acquiring data from their consumers that they aren't even aware of them doing it, and thereby encouraging even more social developers to do the same things. And it's the absolute balls they have to come out completely and admit that they do all these practices and not even try to hide what they do, as if they think it's okay for them to do this shit. For godness sake, the higher ups in the company pretty much bailed and got away with millions of money while the company crumbled, leaving their lowly workers to rott. EA, as shitty as they can be, would not do something that shitty (at least....for now...)


Now, I'm not saying EA, or for that matter any other developer out there, doesn't do this stuff also or that they should be ignored in favor of bashing Zynga. Quite frankly, I'm not really one for either side of the whole suit, though I will admit I would love it if Zynga would get a punch to the nuts after all this.