Puzzloop or Zuma, Diner Dash Or Roller Rush?
One of the more controversial aspects of the recent casual game boom has been 'the clone wars'. And no, we're not talking Count Dooku, but rather, certain simple game designs that seem unduly influenced by other, earlier games, but are still extremely popular, because the casual game-playing public don't know who created it first.
For example, PopCap's Zuma is one of the most popular casual games of all time, but it's being challenged in the download charts by both MumboJumbo's somewhat different Luxor, and by recently Big Fish-acquired French developer FunPause's Atlantis, which even goes as far as to put 'Luxor' and 'Zuma' in its homepage's HTML keywords.
But, while PopCap's James Gwertzman comments in a recent interview of Zuma's success in 2004: "We were all very excited about it, but it's 2005 and there have been a ton of very obvious Zuma clones", we have to ask - how about Mitchell's 1998 title Puzzloop for arcades, also known as Ballistic for PSX in the States? The game's basic design seems identical to Zuma.
There was even some talk of Mitchell, which has released a PC version of Puzzloop, taking PopCap to court over the issue, though neither company has ever made public statements about it. But wherever the first version of that game originated, it's clear that, as Gwertzman comments: "Making clones of existing games isn't as profitable as it used to be."
Yet, it's 2006 and it's still going on, and the most egregious yet is ToyBox Games' Roller Rush. It's not only such a blatant copy of gameLab's Diner Dash that it hurts, and it's already in the Top 10 on Yahoo! Games, ahead of Diner Dash, showing that clones can be just as financially successful in the short term.
So here's the real question - who's going to be the first to sue, as Namco did with Pac-Man clones, over a casual game concept? Maybe many of these ideas are too simple to be copyrighted, but something feels just a little over-ripe in casual games right now regarding game clones.
Comments
Perhaps they should come up with their own ideas, instead of rolling around in dirty money. What will they tell their children. Wont somebody think of the children !
Posted by: RB Stark | January 7, 2006 9:47 PM
Making clones isn't profitable? hahahahahha good joke!!! :D
Posted by: Jack Norton | January 8, 2006 3:56 AM
diner dash is a clone of betty beer bar that is a clone of Tapper from the 80s...
Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2006 3:58 AM
I'm pretty sure that a clone of a successful game will make more money than a game with an original concept. People like what they are familiar with, no matter what games i show my mum, she's still playing Solitaire.
Posted by: davidc | January 8, 2006 3:20 PM
The gameplay in Betty's Beer Bar is nothing like Tapper.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 8, 2006 9:39 PM
Betty's Beer Bar is certainly inspired by Tapper (not a clone, though): You play a bartender serving drinks as quickly as possible, collecting tips and empty mugs, and doing all this before the customers get too rowdy.
Diner Dash isn't exactly a clone of BBB, but it certainly is greatly inspired by it. Roller Rush, however, is a blatant clone. They couldn't even come up with a distinct enough name.
Posted by: Ricardo Colmenares | January 8, 2006 9:55 PM
"Maybe many of these ideas are too simple to be copyrighted"
You can't copyright an idea, simple or complex (and complexity has nothing to do with what CAN be copyrighted!). It's not infringement of anything to copy gameplay. It's totally legal. It's obnoxious and all, but it's not copyright infringement. If the games were patented, it would infringe that, but of course they're not (thankfully!).
Posted by: Hamumu | January 9, 2006 7:12 AM
Well... That´s all about loving games...
Posted by: Maira | January 9, 2006 8:09 AM
Hey, if someone can make a better game from your idea and get more customers, all the power to them. The original developer might have missed an opportunity, but everyone else wins.
Posted by: Paul D | January 9, 2006 8:33 AM
I don't think its good business ethics at all to completely copy a game just weeks after it's release.
I said copy, not use as inspiration and make a btter variation. But COPY. and that's what many indie-develoeprs seem to be doing, simply just copying other games.
I bet some people out there would prefer to steal the source code and reskin so they could shrink dev time and maximize profits.. shame on you..
Posted by: Matt | January 10, 2006 7:12 AM
It's true, you cannot copyright a game idea. Therefore the answer to the article's question "who's going to be the first to sue?" is no one other than companies who wish to piss away money to lawyers. There is already precendant set with Capcom VS Data East.
I think a way around this will be to PATENT gameplay. But good luck with that. By the time such a patent is granted, your game will be old and outdated.
Posted by: Sporek | February 28, 2006 2:36 PM
I'd like to see a few lawsuits over this, just to the blatant reskinning gets stopped. Being influenced is one thing, but just doing a carbon copy of someone elses original ideas is just pathetic. Who is going to bother trying to innovate if the idea is instantly taken from you?
zuma clones for the next 50 years it is then...
Posted by: Dave G | March 20, 2006 2:36 PM
hi i need help with roller rush if u have any tips or walkthroughs e-mail me at
mcr93@bellsouth.net
Posted by: andrew | January 3, 2007 11:25 AM