next »

[neon]

hey, revolution is the new black.  of course, no one wants to actually sit down and think about what should really be done to combat corruption, let alone join a revolution.  they want to look like they would.

This quote is true enough to make me temporarily depressed. Especially since I fall neatly into that category.

thanks!   

anyway, if you want to stop resting on your laurels and be a real INSTRUMENT OF CHANGE OH YEAH

then:

1)  think long and hard ( ) about the issues you're concerned with.  view them from all sides, and think on it a lot.  it'll make you depressed.

2)  start to think of what should be different and what should be done to make these changes (hardest step).

3)  do small things day to day to change the things that you feel should be changed; if you want to get more involved in a cause, get more involved.  the point is that you don't have to sit around, even if you have an extremely busy schedule.. just find little things to do to help.  doing the tiniest bit is better than doing nothing.

also included:  HOW TO LIVE AN INTERESTING LIFE:

1) go against the grain
2) go against the grain
3) go against the grain

i think i'm starting to rival renton in thread derailments

[joshg]

Software patents don't exist. But you can patent inventions and if they are implemented in software form then royalties apply (see fonts: a method for writing the alphabet.)

I know "software patent" isn't a separate entity in the law, I was just using it as a shorthand for what happens when a software process is patented.  Saying "software patents don't exist" is kind of a misleading nitpick when algorithms are being patented on a regular basis in the US.

But, it sucks and it's evil.  Innovation depends on being able to take what others have done and build on it.  Patent law doesn't recognize the difference between taking inspiration from someone else's idea and building on it vs just taking their idea and cloning it.

Again you seem to misunderstand what a patent is. There is a very clear, explicit difference in the treatment of 'clones' vs building on top of an idea.
...
If you just clone a patented object exactly, then you have to pay royalties for every product sold.  However you are quite free to build a new invention that makes use of or extends another patented object, and can even patent the parts that you have added. But you still must pay royalties for the use of the original invention.

So if you innovate on someone else's patent, you have to pay them.  If you don't innovate and just clone, you still have to pay them.  That was my point - there is no difference in terms of you having to pay the patent-holder.

The reason I pointed this out is because solving the specific problem of opportunistic game-clones with patent law is like killing a housefly with a cannon.  Your weapon of choice is just as likely to damage game developers who are actually being creative and contributing to the community.

[Craig Stern]

Seems like there have been bridge-building games before, just not as ... gooey.  Or as awesome.  But my memory is hazy so feel free to shoot me down on that one.

There's Pontifex at least.

I distinctly remember a rash of Flash tower-building games that came out well before World of Goo did. Does that mean World of Goo is itself a rip-off?

[Core Xii]

Everything is derived from something, it's the defining characteristic of the universe. The only question is, how are you going to feel about it?

[Problem Machine]

If you just clone a patented object exactly, then you have to pay royalties for every product sold.  However you are quite free to build a new invention that makes use of or extends another patented object, and can even patent the parts that you have added. But you still must pay royalties for the use of the original invention.

Except the patent owner can simply deny to take your money (or drive the price through the roof) if they would rather be the sole person offering x style of product. It's a funny definition of freedom you use.

[Kneecaps]

Time to vent your frustrations!

But seriously, this isn't that big of a deal.

Wait, what do they have to do with anything?

They're the people who actually made the game.  One of the people involved is the guy who claims he came up with the idea on his own.

[Zaphos]

Time to vent your frustrations!

But seriously, this isn't that big of a deal.

Wait, what do they have to do with anything?

They're the people who actually made the game.  One of the people involved is the guy who claims he came up with the idea on his own.

Ah, sorry, I missed that -- thought it was just RealNetworks.  Thanks, then

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I'm sure they're just one of Real's many in-house teams. They probably just go under their own label to appear indie.

Anyway, this isn't really anything new. Casual games are cloned by a portal's in-house teams all the time.

But one thing to remember is it's easier to clone a gameplay mechanic or even a level design than it is to clone things like story, atmosphere, etc. -- the hardest parts to clone are the parts that many people find the most valuable about a game. Those intangible parts of a game reflect the author's personality, and that can't really be cloned.

[Anthony Flack]

Yes, it is mostly just the people who dedicate themselves to developing innovative new gameplay mechanics which are vulnerable in this way. The game inventors, rather than the game artists, if you like. But it's also the ability to appropriate ideas that allows inventors the freedom to work on these new mechanics without restrictions.

So it goes with all inventors. If you do strike gold, you need to be ready to start digging.

[Movius]

The reason I pointed this out is because solving the specific problem of opportunistic game-clones with patent law is like killing a housefly with a cannon.  Your weapon of choice is just as likely to damage game developers who are actually being creative and contributing to the community.

That is if you consider dodgy imitations to be a problem. The mere fact that 'Shitty Bridge-o-matic 5000' or 'Viscous Fluid Realm' exist doesn't detract from World of Goo in any way. Unless you're talking about direct copying of code/graphics/sound/etc. In which case copyright should suffice.

Except the patent owner can simply deny to take your money (or drive the price through the roof) if they would rather be the sole person offering x style of product. It's a funny definition of freedom you use.

Not really, given that I consider patents and freedom to be antithetical to each other, because patents are based on the premise that an individual does not own their own work.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

While I agree with you about patents being a bad method I think it's ridiculous to claim that clones don't hurt the people who made the game that was cloned in any way. Obviously there is some harm, through reduced sales and all that. Not that this necessarily happens in all cases of cloning (e.g. I doubt this particular clone will take away from World of Goo's sales significantly because it's already so popular) but there are cases where a clone becomes more well-known than the original, especially on a different platform. Puzz Loop's clone is a good example of that.

[MikeDee]

A cloned game that sucks. Now that's suprising !

[Eclipse]

It's a fuzzy area since you can't protect an individual mechanic and often times the good games are just weird combinations of those mechanics (braid = mario * prince of persia in a simple sence)

Fair enough; I just really hate clone games.

so then don't buy them

it's not that easy, bigger companies can afford a much greater marketing power that can obscure who cloned who at the eyes of casual gamers \ fanboys \ people that don't care a shit about... ending to do A LOT of damage to the original game.

for example, average gamer will buy a wii, he will connect to wiiware and starts trying tiki towers, liking it and thinking the concept of the game is fun, he will buy it.. then he will discover about world of goo and "oh it's like the other one i took, i'll pass"...

just like that shitload of free crayon physics clones i'm sure are hurting petri sales

[Movius]

While I agree with you about patents being a bad method I think it's ridiculous to claim that clones don't hurt the people who made the game that was cloned in any way. Obviously there is some harm, through reduced sales and all that. Not that this necessarily happens in all cases of cloning (e.g. I doubt this particular clone will take away from World of Goo's sales significantly because it's already so popular) but there are cases where a clone becomes more well-known than the original, especially on a different platform. Puzz Loop's clone is a good example of that.

well theres the potential for harm if they're stealing content directly. If theres no copyright violations then surely they are selling their own work.

It happens with any other succesful product and they seem to survive fine: Coca-cola make billions of dollars despite the existance of AC-Cola. Everybody loves Mythbusters and hates Smash Lab. Hundreds of millions of people watch cricket despite the existance of the clearly inferior clone sport of Baseball. The list goes on.

Then theres the possibility that people, previously unaware of the thriving bridge-game genre, may play and enjoy Tiki Tower and want to build more structures. Surely this quest for bridges will lead them to (the more expensive) World of Goo. Are 2DBoy immorally profitting from the hard work of Realnetworks in this situation?

[salade]

world of goo is a really bad example for the clones hurt argument.

1) world of goo is listed as the most popular wiiware game as of now, but you have to dig through nintendo's somewhat clumsy interface to find tiki towers (actually, i think it's near the top of the recently added list, but that will change.)

2) most people probably don't buy world of goo because they came across it on wii ware and noted that it is a physics based puzzle, their favorite genre. most of it's sales are probably from reputation.

I'm quite dissappointed in tiki towers. if your going to make a clone, you should at least make it offensively simillar to what you are cloning. like crazy kong.