Robbery or inspiration?

In any commercialised art form, the creators often tread a fine line between inspiration and shameless copying. Some small video game makers say that line seems to have all but disappeared.

In any commercialised art form, the creators often tread a fine line between inspiration and shameless copying. Some small video game makers say that line seems to have all but disappeared.

HT Image

Vlambeer, a start-up, made a free online game in 2010 called Radical Fishing. The game involved catching fish with a hook, reeling them in and tossing them in the air, and then shooting them with a gun. The game became popular, so Vlambeer planned a sequel for iPhones and iPads.

But then a new game appeared in Apple’s store: Ninja Fishing, made by Gamenauts. This game involved catching fish with a hook, reeling them in and tossing them in the air, but then slashing them with a katana sword. Ninja Fishing became a top app in Apple’s App Store. NimbleBit, another game start-up, had a similar situation. Its Tiny Tower became the Apple App Store’s game of the year. Along came Zynga, the big game developer, with a more or less similar game called Dream Heights.

Cloning the soul of a game — its gameplay mechanics, design, characters and storyline — is now common in digital marketplaces. And while the app stores have offered an opportunity for independent software makers to reach customers and make money with an innovative game, they are learning it is just as easy for another studio to compete with a very similar game.

“When another company takes inspiration from the game and they try to make a different game out of it, that’s when getting imitated turns into a compliment,” said Rami Ismail, a co-founder of Vlambeer. “Getting cloned is like getting punched in the face. It’s like a robbery.”

One reason that cloning is so frequent in the industry is that there is no easy way to protect a game. Small game makers could seek patents protecting design, but they shy away from this because acquiring a patent can be both time-consuming and expensive. In addition, because games so often draw inspirations from previous works, many game creators believe that patent protections could stifle creativity in future games.

Spry Fox, another game maker, tried suing 6waves Lolapps. In its complaint, Spry Fox argued that it had been in negotiations with 6waves Lolapps and had given access to an early version of Triple Town. “There are smaller companies who have learned from history that cloning is a valid business model,” said Daniel Cook, a chief creative officer of Spry Fox.

Many small game companies share a fear of Zynga. The sentiment among them is that it is a matter of when, not if, Zynga will clone a game after it becomes successful. When asked about how it creates games, John Schappert, Zynga’s chief operating officer, said he thinks Zynga is an innovator. He said Zynga’s mission was to win over consumers with the best quality games of each genre. But founders of Vlambeer said cloning is not good for consumers; it makes it more difficult for small companies to take risks on new ideas.

Zynga itself has fought the issue of cloning. In 2011, Zynga filed a lawsuit against Vostu, a Brazilian company, accusing it of blatantly copying Zynga’s games.

In the end, NimbleBit resorted only to public shaming as a recourse. The maker of Tiny Tower published a graphic stacking screenshots of the two games side by side to show how closely they resembled each other. NimbleBit wrote in the graphic: “Good luck with your game, we are looking forward to inspiring you with our future games!”

The New York Times