Your argument hinges on the idea that Zynga is merely copying--a fairly acceptable practice. In this case, and in several others, images, sounds, and code were copied wholesale, with barely any changes. Zynga isn't ripping off or borrowing ideas, they are stealing them and rebranding them. Were this the world of overpriced "luxury" handbags, there would be police raids confiscating the forgeries and arresting any persons found in the vicinity of them. Zynga has been stealing components of other games and calling them their own. When identical items, interactions, sounds, color patterns, and even code snippets are found in their games, there's a legitimate case. This isn't the same as two shooters having similar aspects, or two dungeon crawlers working with the same premise and mechanics, this is theft. Early on, their games were mostly of their own design. The longer they've been around, though, the more they steal. A quick search for them in the news shows quite a few counterfeiting and plagiarism charges, and the accusations get more and more serious with each one. And with all their financial trouble of late, they finally did it to the wrong party.Signa said:Was that meant for me? I don't see how it applies to anything I was saying.BehattedWanderer said:You would rather all that casual gamer want for small, amusing timesinks is picked up by companies like Bethesda, SquareEnix, or Infinity Ward/Dice/Treyarch? That instead of letting them focus on the titanic games they do design for the dedicated gamers, they focus their time and effort into making the shiniest and most alluring Skinner boxes? It's a foolish idea to think that social gaming isn't worth it, for there are millions of people willing to put small amounts of cash down at a time rather, and continue to do so over time. There's a reason companies like Rovio and Zynga are doing so well, and it has everything to do with appealing to the market that specifically isn't interested in the hardcore titles.Signa said:The worst part of this is that by suing Zynga, EA is saying they own the entire sim genre. That is not something anyone should fight for.
My stance is that a company can't own a genre. Rooting for EA is like rooting for a company to own a whole genre. No one should be fighting for that to happen.
Zynga are dirty fucking plagiarizers, and I'm not defending their products or business practices. What I'm saying is that suing them for making a clone of a game is a slippery slope to go down, because it will lead to other companies suing just to have control over a certain genre.
If this goes through, what is stopping Blizzard from suing Relic for making a top-down real-time-strategy game with the central UI based in the lower 1/3rd of the screen and an active minimap. The games industry has been borrowing elements from each other for as long as I can remember. In fact, it's the reason why certain games start to feel dated or age poorly, because some other game will come along and do it better, thus setting a new standard in interactivity.
Now Zynga is certainly stretching what I'm defending to the breaking point, but I'd prefer to let Zynga get away with it than risk every game to be made in the future on it. Besides, I don't get the impression that Zynga games have a feel of quality. Cloned games aren't going to be better than the original because they are literally carbon copies. If a company can't be bothered to invent their own games, I can't expect them to improve the games they are copying either. The superior product will still sell more as a result.
I've no particular love for EA, but I've less love for Zynga. Better to have the uncaring investors that only greenlight the guaranteed moneymakers than the thieves that would leave us with nothing.