Some of the stuff in the details section is pretty astounding. They've copied things as closely as the wall-height to floor size ratio. I doubt even EA thought much about that, other than selecting a size that they thought looked reasonable, yet Zynga neeeded to put effort into copying it so exactly? Why? If you're going to rip off a game, why put effort into making it so blatant?
I understand Zynga even less now.
My gut feeling on reading the headline was originally "Well, EA can't complain, Simcity Social was far more a Cityville clone than a continuation of Simcity", but wow, actually looking at the complaint is pretty damning for Zynga.
As a graphic designer, I can tell you that a detail like the wall height to tile size ratio is actually a very specifically chosen value based on a number of trade-offs and priorities, and not something easily arrived at because it just looks pretty good. Which isn't to say that a given ratio is inevitable (or that the match in this legal case is pure coincidence, it certainly is NOT), just that you may wish to be aware that you're short-changing the designers based on your lack of domain expertise.
Probably, they prototyped the game using rips of Sims assets, and as they replaced EA's art with their own they tried to keep the new elements consistent with the old ones (rather than, say, having some walls suddenly 1.3x as tall as others for no obvious reason.)
If you're not skilled enough to create something good, you're better off finding something good and copying it exactly — you're probably not qualified to understand which parts are essential and which are arbitrary. It takes guts to copy something exactly, though; most people can't resist the urge to make their mark.
what a destructive attitude. many things 'work'. insider trading and extortion work too, does that mean we can't 'hate' on them?
just because something happens doesn't mean it 'should' happen. you filter options through your values to really decide if 'it works'. good insight into your character.
You completely missed the point. He's not saying that Zynga's actions are moral or should be socially acceptable, just that it's easy to see their motivation. It's not hard to understand why they do what they do, no matter how reprehensible.
i got that. but i don't call that something that 'works'. my point is that making cash isn't the only condition that needs to be met for something to 'work'. i take issue with his use of 'it works'.
> my point is that making cash isn't the only condition that needs to be met for something to 'work'.
To make cash, you must make cash. This is a simple tautology. Insider trading and extortion work. Again, fact. Denying reality does not make it go away. We 'hate' on them because we have larger goals that are sabotaged by these things: a free market, a trusting society. If we are to succeed at our better goals, then we cannot do so by pretending things are other than what they are.
I probably hate Zynga more than you do, since they basically killed my dreams of entering the industry on my terms. But I don't let my hatred make me blind and stupid to the point where I no longer understand what it means for something to work.
I don't hate zynga, I just think they're irrelevant, they add no value, they move nothing forward, they are a wealth redistribution scheme. What they do, doesn't 'work' in my book, so I don't care.
so what's the point of your original post that 'Zynga is in fact pulling cash' that's a fact, but so what? why should I care if I don't like how they're doing it? is there something i should take away from the fact that they make cash?
> why should I care if I don't like how they're doing it?
I don't know. Why are you posting in this thread? I wasn't responding to you in my initial reply and I haven't a clue how you managed to feel personally spoken to from it.
Why are you even in a comment thread about a company you consider irrelevant?
It's a public board and I'm responding to a public comment. What I'm asking is why you or anyone care that they're making shit loads of money, why is that so impressive, esp if you hate them? I'm in the thread to challenge folks to think beyond cash so there are fewer zyngas in the world, because that affects the business environemnt and that affects me.
Nobody said it was impressive, and they care only because it came up in the conversation. If you bothered to read the comment thread, you would see that Macha said:
>I understand Zynga even less now."
So saraid216 explained their motivation, i.e. that they're able to make money doing things like this.
your character is relevant because it's tied to how you choose to define what 'works'. i agree with your other comment making cash = making cash. but thats not what you said, you said works, which implies your only definition of working is making cash. i'm challenging that, i'm saying you get to choose how you define what works, and your choice of what 'works' means, is determined by your values.
It's not about me, it's about accepting a shady company as a success so long as they accomplish their goal of making cash. Im making the case that there's more to a successful company than just making cash. We shouldnt be impressed simply because a company makes cash. It's not about superiority, just stating a challenging point of view. No need to take it personally.
You are the one that made it personal. saraid216 said that Zynga is getting what Zynga wants and you immediately pretended saraid216 was saying that it was something Zynga 'should' do and we couldn't criticize Zynga for it. Then you directly insulted saraid216's character. Get off your high horse and stop reacting to things people didn't say or mean.
You don't have to pretend someone disagrees with you just so you can post your point.
I understand Zynga even less now.
My gut feeling on reading the headline was originally "Well, EA can't complain, Simcity Social was far more a Cityville clone than a continuation of Simcity", but wow, actually looking at the complaint is pretty damning for Zynga.