
2048 is why we can’t have nice things - joelbro
http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2014/03/30/2048-why-we-can%E2%80%99t-have-nice-things
======
javaguy_98
I call BS.

First, I purchased Threes only after becoming aware of it because of 2048. I
bet there are hundreds of people who can claim the same thing.

Second, if you've spent any time playing both, the term 'clone' does both
games a dis-service... its like calling Checkers a 'clone' of Chess because
they are both played on the ame type of gameboard. The gameplay between the
two games is completely different, and I find I think about each one
differently. 2048 (and my favorite variant the hexagon-based 16384) are 'fast
twitch' games. Threes is a slow thinker with more strategy. let run down some
differences:

\- in 2048, the numbers slide all the way in the direction you move. in Threes
they only move one space.

\- in 2048, a number '2' (or occasionally a number '4') appears in a random
position on the board. With Threes, the piece always appears in one of the
positions that opens up with your 'slide'.

\- in Threes, you get to know (roughly) what piece is coming next, and have an
active choice in where it appears... in 2048, you don't.

All of these might seem like subtle changes, but they make a dramatic
difference in the mental exercise of the gameplay.

To call these clones makes as much sense to me as calling them _all_ clones of
the classic '15-puzzle'.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_puzzle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_puzzle)

~~~
mcphage
> All of these might seem like subtle changes, but they make a dramatic
> difference in the mental exercise of the gameplay. To call these clones
> makes as much sense to me as calling them all clones of the classic
> '15-puzzle'.

There's a continuum of changes. If Threes is '1', and 2048 is '2', then 15
puzzle is 9 or 10. There the only commonality is the 4x4 grid and the idea of
moving a tile into an empty space.

------
mikeash
Mobile game is a massive parade of shit with a very occasional gem. It's been
this way at least since shortly after the iPhone App Store happened. It got
_vastly_ worse with the introduction of in-app purchases.

2048 is one of those gems. I have no idea how it compares to Threes, because I
never played the latter. I did hear of it when it was first making the rounds,
but couldn't be bothered to try it out. I certainly enjoyed 2048 though.

You're going to have to try a _lot_ harder than this if you want to convince
me that one of the gems in the sea of shit that is mobile gaming is actually
somehow _at fault_ for that sea.

~~~
hapless
It took Threes' developers over a year to hone the gameplay concept, but once
it was finished, it took only a day to clone it.

This creates deeply perverse incentives for mobile development.

~~~
mikeash
2048 is fairly different, so either the specifics were not that important, or
the creator of 2048 just got incredibly lucky to hit on a variation that was
also great.

Edit: OK downvoters, you need to reply and explain what you think is wrong
here. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You can't have it both ways. If
the details matter so much that Threes required a year to develop to get
everything right, then how did 2048 become so successful when it changes so
many details?

~~~
program
I've played both games. The only difference I see (in term of game mechanics)
is that 2048 have no "3" tiles but only power-of-2.

~~~
mikeash
Here's a different opinion from elsewhere in the thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7501908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7501908)

Those details seem like exactly the sort of thing you'd spend a long time
sweating over if you're going to spend this much time on a game like that.

------
kapnobatairza
The idea that video game clones has gone from "being the exception to being
the rule" is cute. The author clearly didn't grow up in the 80s/early 90s when
cloning video games WAS the norm. How many pong, breakout, asteroids, space
invaders, zaniac etc. etc. clones did we see?

Even when it comes to the world of AAA FPS titles everything is essentially a
high budget clone of previously established paradigms.

The fact of the matter is: Almost everything in gaming is a clone. Yes, once
in a while a developer will be able to establish a new genre and that is
great. What is even better is other developers following in his footsteps and
trying to improve upon the original in terms of mechanics, cost, design,
accessibility, etc. in a free competing marketplace of ideas.

The only reason gaming has advanced as far as it has is because developers
were never stifled by fearing imitation. Instead, game developers have
embraced imitation.

------
bhaak
"We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it."

Bold statement that "invested more time" automatically equals "better".

I haven't played Threes yet but from the screen shot in that article, I think
2048 is at least a _better-looking_ game.

I also have a hard time believing that there hasn't been a similar game before
Threes. It's not like the gaming industry started yesterday. Such a simple
game mechanic is likely to have been implemented before.

That's the problem with simple things. They can get invented more easily by
anybody and often independently.

~~~
masswerk
If you would have read their blog-post, you've also encountered their
argument, why Threes! would be the better game in their eyes:

"But why is Threes better? It’s better for us, for our goals. 2048 is a broken
game. Something we noticed about this kind of system early on (...). We wanted
players to be able to play Threes over many months, if not years. We both beat
2048 on our first tries. (...) When an automated script that alternates
pressing up and right and left every hundreth time can beat the game, then
well, that's broken. Is Threes a better game? We think so. To this day, only
about 6 people in the world have ever seen a 6144 and nobody in the world has
yet to “beat” Threes. But that’s what’s better to us as game designers. We
worked really hard to create a simple game system with interesting complexity
that you can play forever. You know, “simple to learn, impossible to master”.
That old chess-nut…"

~~~
ebrenes
To expand on what neotek said, none of this makes Three's a better game. All
they are advocating is that it's a harder game that's so far been impossible
to beat, and that they've tailored it to fit their tastes as game designers.

That's fine and all, but why do they expect the market to reward them for
that? Do they assume the market will like what they like, and are bitter that
the market didn't react how they expected? It doesn't always follow that an
expert's opinion matches the marketplace or even the average user's desires.

2048 had easier and faster-paced gameplay, a lower barrier of entry, provided
a better distribution model (just pass around the link) and it fostered a
vibrant modding community. It seems to me like they are really missing the big
picture behind what makes a game successful, if all they can come up with is:
"2048 is too easy".

~~~
masswerk
What you are missing, if we're following the arguments of the initial article,
is, why there's 1024, 2048, etc, at all. If "free" is the better distribution
model, and that's it, will there be any more 1024, 2048, etc?

(Also, I was just pointing out that the apparent quote didn't match with the
intentions of the authors' blog-post.)

~~~
ebrenes
I don't mean to be flippant, but so what, if 1024, 2048, etc... were inspired
on Threes?

None of those games are exact copies, and even the Three's designers admit
these others are "inferior" versions. Are they arguing that you can't make
derivative works? If they are, then like I said, I don't support that argument
because I do believe that derivative works provide value and should be
protected.

But to be honest, I don't think that's the main gist. When reading the article
the main point that came across was one of annoyance that the original work
was not receiving as much attention as the derivative works. As if the world
cared who came first, or that coming first actually provided some intrinsic
benefit (as opposed to a situational or contextual benefit).

------
fennecfoxen
Meh. _Threes_ has almost certainly gotten more publicity and sales through
2048 than it's lost. (I was one of those sales.) Cry me a river.

~~~
shimfish
Historical ranking data seems to show this isn't true. Sales started to drop
at the end of February and did not recover when 2048 came out. It's still
doing pretty darn good though.

------
nghst
"[Free, open-source software] is why we can't have nice things" ...?

2048 exploded because anyone could modify it, create a doge version, create an
AI version, a multiplayer version, an inverted version ...

And they did. The formula was ridiculously simple, so it was easy to do.

You can't do that with Threes. It's proprietary. You can't take it apart. You
can't mess around with it. The only thing you can do with it is play Threes.

~~~
danielweber
The very first post of 2048 made the #1 spot on HN, before people started
modding it.

My son has 2048 on his Ipod without me mentioning it to him, and he never ever
gave one hoot about being able to modify it.

~~~
izzydata
What exactly is your circumstantial evidence supporting here?

~~~
Sae5waip
That maybe nghst should take a step back from HN and consider that normal
people may find the original 2048 fun and may not care about its variants at
all.

Giving an example is a perfectly valid way to make a point. Circumstantial
doesn't mean wrong.

------
bluedino
>> Apple and Google need to get a whole lot tougher in their approval process.
They need to be picky about what they let in and they need to be willing to
shut out anything that’s a blatant copy of somebody else’s work.

Bad idea. How do they decide who stays and who goes when it comes to clones?
The 'best' game? The first game?

~~~
slantyyz
>> Bad idea. How do they decide who stays and who goes when it comes to
clones? The 'best' game? The first game?

All the console makers have been deciding what can be made for their systems
for a long time. I'm sure the process can be quite arbitrary and unfair, but
at the very least, it reflects some effort to have a curated library of games.

Personally, I'd prefer to see App Stores that had a much more curated
experience (for all categories, not just games) than a "swap meet" type of
experience, but that's just me. These days I find the App Stores incredibly
painful to use due to the amount of duplicate junk in their inventories.

I find most of my mobile downloads and purchases these days come from
recommendations by sites I trust.

~~~
bluedino
>> All the console makers have been deciding what can be made for their
systems for a long time. I'm sure the process can be quite arbitrary and
unfair, but at the very least, it reflects some effort to have a curated
library of games.

Consoles have traditionally had a large barrier to entry. You couldn't just
buy a MacBook and a $99 developer account and make NES or PlayStation games.
Having an SDK that costs $25,000 in combination with an approval process to
even consider you eligible to buy it is a big filter.

~~~
slantyyz
Granted, but I'm saying that's not necessarily a bad thing.

------
rblstr
I bought threes because of 2048...

This is a lot of bullshit. They're obviously different games, credit was given
where credit was due. 2048 helped, not hindered Threes. I've even passed
Threes around my friends, they love it.

I like it less now.

------
dkrich
I don't know who the author is chastising- the maker of three's or the maker
or 2048, or the clones of 2048.

I don't really sympathize with the maker of three's. In the business world,
one of the key metrics for determining the lasting value of a business are the
barriers to entry in that market. If you make a video game for a smartphone,
you must realize that you are entering a wildly-competitive marketplace with
few-to-zero barriers to entry, at least monetarily.

I guess I can understand the frustration of the makers of threes when seeing
clones being played instead of theirs but if it is so easy for other
programmers to make _successful_ clones, the game that they produced couldn't
have been that special. Otherwise people would still be playing it.

~~~
masswerk
Hum, if I got the initial post right, that was the very point made here. If we
would want to have developers to invest in original ideas in a market that has
so little barriers, it's probably up to the customers (and their long term
strategy) to care for this. Otherwise, it wouldn't be wise for anyone to
invest in this market place at all, which would probably effect in a total
lack of originality in the goods traded there.

Edit: Please note that it is in the very nature of a game (being it a mobile
game or a board game) to have quite simple mechanics and a limited set of
rules, in a sense of "simple to learn, impossible to master" (as mentioned by
the authors of Threes!). So it's in the very essence of a good game to allow
copies with an effort that is in no relation with the effort that has to be
invested to come up with the rules and mechanics in the first place.

------
hapless
A "Nintendo Seal of Quality" would be really great for games. You can't
copyright a game design, only the art, so the markets always fill with clones

What scares me about this sort of program is the possibility of a similar
barrier on _applications_. An app market with only one word processor would be
terrible, but a market with only one flappy bird is probably better than a
market with two.

~~~
batmansbelt
> a market with only one flappy bird is probably better than a market with
> two.

Care to back up that assertion? It may be better for the original author, but
it's hard to see how it would benefit the community.

~~~
hapless
Games do not compete on features, they compete on concept and gameplay. I
don't see how the obvious clones offer anything to market participants.

Does anyone actually want to browse 200 variants on flappy bird, or "threes,"
or candy crush?

~~~
micfok
Games don't compete on concept, otherwise there would only be one RTS, or one
FPS. Games compete on art, story, level design, and game mechanics, among
other non-game specific components like marketing, distribution, and pricing.

Realistically, a concept alone is not sufficient.

I bought Threes, then moved to 2048 because while Threes had components like
cute tiles, fun voices, and features like showing the next tile, it was still
simply easier/quicker to open a new tab and play from there.

------
diydsp
If the medium itself lends itself so easily to cloning and there is no
protection for the _mechanics_ of a game, the game should be combined with
protectable assets, e.g. graphics.

Look at Chutes and Ladders. Stunning dumb game mechanic, but the graphics are
an asset that makes the game into an asset.

The video game medium doesn't allow one to compete on game mechanics alone.

~~~
hapless
This is much easier for console titles, played in your living room on a 46"
screen. AAA FPS titles offer virtually identical gameplay, but their art
assets and thematic direction differentiate them for players.

Selling mobile games based on compelling assets is a touch more difficult.
(And that goes double for puzzles)

------
batmansbelt
Culture is collaborative. Every idea is built on something, and you can't lay
claim to a whole class of ideas, or expect someone else not to do a better job
and charge less. That's just how society works.

~~~
crusso
"that's just how it works" is not necessarily "what's best in the long term"
or "what promotes the healthiest games market".

------
rickr
> Others rifled off that they thought 2048 was a better game than Threes. That
> all stung pretty bad. We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year
> on it. And obviously, Threes is the reason 2048 exists.”

Isn't this a bad road to travel down? People are saying 2048 is better, but
the authors are rejecting them only because they spent a year and a half on
the project?

Maybe that's an indicator why 2048 was more popular.

------
PaulHoule
Casual gaming is a fad, like the coin-op games were in the 1980's. You just
can't tell great stories or get good user engagement when you are nickel-and-
diming people.

If you've "had enough" you should (i) get a PlayStation Vita, (ii) get
Killzone Mercenary, (iii) play it through, (iv) get a dev kit.

It's time to "think different"

------
nilkn
While I can understand their pain, I hadn't heard of _Threes_ before this
happened. So I'm not fully convinced that this has been strictly bad for them.

That said, I couldn't buy _Threes_ even if I wanted to, because I don't have
an iPhone.

------
Consultant32452
I have mixed feelings. I mean the entire game could be copied in 2 days?
Sounds like a serious lack of content in your game. I do feel bad for them
though, they might miss their chance to have the game of the month and sell
for a billion bucks.

------
devnonymous
Oh come on ! Any creative+commercial industry is full of clones. From movies,
to music, to books, to ...whathaveyou. In any of these, once a 'formula' is
proved to work, you'd get clones by the bucket-loads. In almost all of these
the capital invested in really doing something different and creative is much
higher than in the software industry. One just has to accept that

    
    
       a. You might get imitated if you are successful
    
       b. The imitation might get more successful than you
    

Why is the software industry so full of whiners !?!

------
kevando
While 2048 certainly cloned threes, I agree with others that threes benefited
more with the proliferation of 2048. On that note, I also think it's more
interesting to discuss WHY 2048 spread so far and so quickly. Yeah, it's super
addicting, but does anyone else think it's related to the fact it was released
open source?

If you were to look at the top 50 posts on HN in the last month, I bet 10 are
variations of that game. Which is pretty remarkable and no one is talking
about.

------
lukesandberg
I seriously doubt that threes was born in a vacuum.

Threes was surely itself modeled after other games (mahjong comes to mind,
though i'm sure there are better examples). To claim that 2048 is merely a
'clone' ignores the ways in which 2048 is different (some would say better)
and it also propagates a damaging myth of creation/innovation.

------
izzydata
There is something to be said about games that are so easily reproduced. I'm
not really sure what exactly, but it seems silly that I could make a simple
game and then when someone else reproduced it in a day to call them out on it.
Kind of like not being able to patent things that are too simple and obvious.

~~~
danielweber
There is something to be said about books that are so easily reproduced. I'm
not really sure what exactly, but it seems silly that I could make a simple
book and then when someone else reproduced it in a day to call them out on it.
Kind of like not being able to patent things that are too simple and obvious.

~~~
izzydata
The code would be entirely different so that isn't really the same thing.

------
mariusz79
When I saw the title of the post I was hoping for an article complaining about
thousands of people wasting time on stupid things like games, when we have not
enough people working on more important and more exciting project..
unfortunately I was wrong.

------
nakedrobot2
And on the same page of HN we have a post asking to abolish software
patents....

------
ivanca
I have news pal; everything is a copy of a copy, the tires on cars are a copy
of the tires on carriages; your blog design use buttons of the platform in one
line and subcategories on the next line, something I sow more than a decade
ago before your website even existed, just as the idea of having a ranking-
list-with-availability on the right side of the template.

This is a universal truth, including cult movies who are indeed a copy of
older (sometimes not so famous) movies:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaA8DMVOYhg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaA8DMVOYhg)

------
ergest
You should have titled this post "2048: The Game of Clones"

------
smileysteve
This is a great example of 'why your idea doesn't matter'

2048 managed to execute its marketing better, spreading through HackerNews and
Reddit.

~~~
_delirium
I don't think it was really marketing so much as price & platform: Threes is a
paid iPhone game, while 2048 is a free web/iPhone clone. Generally free $x
finds it easier to build traction for most x (though not all), and being free
_and_ in-browser makes it a lot easier to pass links around.

~~~
lukesandberg
...which just proves that 2048 had a better strategy.... price and platform
are a major component of marketing

~~~
_delirium
Not necessarily one that the original game could've followed, though. Making a
free clone of a popular paid game is a _much_ better marketing situation than
making the initial game free and trying to get enough traction for it to make
money on the ad revenue.

It's actually not clear to me that 2048 has more revenue than Threes come to
think of it. 2048 has more players, but Threes gets $1.99 per player, which I
doubt 2048 matches. Perhaps Threes is successfully using the following
marketing strategy: make a paid game, get extra attention via a free clone,
then write an essay reminding people that your paid original still exists and
is the source of these clones, and use that publicity to drive sales of the
original.

------
michaelochurch
Threes and 2048 are different games. The differences are pretty substantial.
Yes, Threes is almost certainly a better game. 2048 is a game that takes
hundreds of turns and the "meta-game" is about knowing when to play fast
(spamming into a corner) and when not. Threes gets around the tedious aspect
by allowing larger numbers to spawn, and having more strategic depth in
general.

What made 2048 go viral was that it was open-source, so people could modify it
or write AI or analyze it, and that it's really simple. The interface is
spartan, to its benefit. At each turn, there are only 4 options. The rich,
40-hour J-RPGs of the '90s and new German-style board games just aren't going
to come about in the mobile space.

The Gresham's Law factors in game virality used to piss me off (ask a Googler
who was there in 2011) but I'm sort of resigned on that issue, at least at
this point. You occasionally get a casual gem like Angry Birds or Threes or
2048. That's about the best that space can do. And that's OK. To its credit,
2048 probably brought exposure and more users to Threes, once people got bored
with the simpler, free game.

