Certainly, Gamenauts gets a design that has already proved popular with audiences, but is that really enough incentive to destroy your reputation?
I think he's overestimating how much people in general care about clones. Sure, in indie game developer circles, their reputation is stained. But most people are not aware, and even if they are, most don't give a shit. Ninja Fishing is now the top #13 paid app on the App Store.
That said, maybe with this backlash the press and distribution channels will start giving a fuck.
There are so many games that wouldn't exist today if people couldn't use the same idea... I just can't imagine ANY game developer getting their panties in a wad over it. So long as you don't use any copyrighted materials, it's all fair game. That's what competition is. Deal with it.
This is not just borrowing a few ideas, it's a blatant ripoff. And it was released while Vlambeer was developing an iOS version to start monetizing their success. You can be competitive and morally correct, they're not exclusive.
I wonder if it's close enough to warrant a copyright suit. I know Zynga's been sued a few times for cloning other successful games and then using their mounds of cash to out-market the original creators, and I believe they settled with at least one of them.
This type of activity occurs in physical products as well. If company A has excellent distribution and company B has limited distribution, but a great product, company A will replicate it and sell it across their distribution network.
Engineers and shareholders at company B will have a similar reaction that we do here in that it feels unconfortable, but it is legal (or at least no financially feasibly legal to go after) and the practice will continue.
The lesson here is that there is a lot of value in your distribution network and you should focus time there while innovating great games.
Quote: Moral of the story: If you want to support creative, independent developers, avoid "Ninja Fishing" and wait for "Ridiculous Fishing." The only way to discourage this sort of action is to hurt copycats in the wallet, so make your voice heard.
Meh, launching objects at structures to collapse them is a pretty common concept. Catching fish, throwing them in the air and shooting them is a bit different I guess.
I find it very strange that in this crazy age of software patent mutual destruction, cloning games is such an open field.
And vice versa, that the same crowd that is violently anti-patent (in the majority) is also perpetually upset (in the majority) when a game of lovable developer X,Y,Z gets copied.
There is no conflict there. I am both the things you describe.
I've had one of my games cloned so badly that, in their launch forum thread, about 80% of the posts were saying 'uh you just copied [my game]'.
It pissed me off quite a lot, but I in no way believe I should have been able to respond legally. Protecting me from being ripped off wholesale would be preventing everyone from being able to cross pollinate ideas, which is what gaming - and software development in general - is founded on.
Agreed. Although I have to admit, I also find the idea of someones creative concept being copied far more offensive than setting out to solve a common problem and adopting the same solution as someone else.
I'd agree with you if it were a case of literally taking the source code from someone else's creative algorithm and copying it. So in the same way people find it offensive to copy someone else's fish shooting concept it would be offensive to straight copy the RSA algorithm and claim it as your own.
But it seems like 99% of software patent issues are about two people sitting down to solve the same common problem and independently writing their own algorithms that achieve a similar solution.
A case of people simultaneously converging on the optimum solution to a problem and implementing that solution themselves seems like a complete non-issue and what progress looks like to me but that's what most the current fuss seems to be about.
It's quite possible to be both anti-patent and anti-ripoff.
The question is whether and to what degree the government and courts should be involved, and the inability to draw bright lines provides a strong argument against.
The legal system is making "I know it when I see it" decisions. I think that should be avoided whenever possible.
If you don't involve the legal system, there is _no_ provision against rip-offs. So yes, you can be anti-patent and anti-ripoff, but it's a rather incoherent world view. (Unless you assume humans are innately good and can be persuaded to do the right thing without external force. In that case, I wish you luck, but I'm in too cynical a mood to follow that argument)
and there's a storm brewing about it on twitter if you look for Gamenauts (http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%22gamenauts%22)
or #NinjaFishing (http://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%22ninja%20fishing%22).