101–110 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927
The very comment you link to says 2048 was based on 1024. And 1024 was indisputably based on Threes.
> We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it. I played Threes, and I liked it. And I feel for these guys having to watch everybody and his brother pile on to the idea they had to work so hard to tease out into reality. But here is some hard truth: none of that matters. Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. All they care about is what you have produced at the end of all th…
This is an essay from a craftsman to other craftsmen. Your position is not one of a craftsman, it is one of a salesman.
All they want is a good game, and for many of them that game is 2048...
Okay, Okay. I get the crying from the threes developers and all, but there is a key difference between why 2048 did phenomenally well and threes didn't. 2048 is a game that was HACKED together and displayed on HACKER news and made open source for the sole purpose of independent HACKING, and indie creativity. In fact, 2048 has got to be the best case study of how HACKING went viral, not so much about how the game went…
2048 was free. Threes wasn't. That's literally the only reason it has more downloads. Threes was #1 on top paid for a long time.
Is it really that hard to let indie projects have a chance?
I bet there's an effect there.
I bet it's in Three's favor.
And I bet any freshman-level stats student could rigorously show it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an essay from a craftsman to other craftsmen. Your position is not one of a craftsman, it is one of a salesman.
And the consumer doesn't care at all what anyone is. All they want is a good game, and for many of them that game is 2048...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the game were very superior to the clones, they wouldn't have to explain why. Games are like jokes, in that way.
This isn't really true. There are tons of games out there that capture the imagination better than other clones, but have shallower gameplay. The initial 'demo' period might be fun, but it doesn't mean the game will last. The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.
This is the critical point missed by calling 2048 a clone. Of course it's a clone, and that's what makes it so interesting.
2048, in isolation, isn't that much fun; it captured interest for a while, but what made it gain popularity was being so simple that it lent itself to a hundred variations. Every one of those is, in some ways, more a "clone" of 2048 than 2048 is of Threes, but the meta-game has become fun in ways the game itself isn't. Just look at things like Flappy 2048, or Numberwang 2048.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether or not it's the company your friend is at, King games do the same thing (the Candy Crush stuff). All of the games of theirs I've seen are tweaks of puzzler games that are 20 years old. Throw on lots of shiny graphics and transitions, tweak the edges of the gameplay, and viola! New market killer.
No offense, but it seems to me that researching and subsequently ripping off 20 year-old games is somewhat different than ripping off days-old games already designed for the same interface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either. He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.
Having a foot in the indie game developer community and another in startups, it's fascinating to see the HN comments in response to this post. The indie game developers care about originality, passion, the sweat and hard months of work, the dedication to the craft. I think the point of Asher's essay is to show how much love and effort went into it, and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game wit…
technically speaking? as a fellow dev with feet traditionally in both worlds (indie and startup), i can heartily say "meh" about both the rant and its the whole "ripoff" thing. you are absolutely correct about the indie guys being different from startup guys by wanting: 1) enough money to keep doing what they love. 2) recognition for what they do. the threes guys? in the ios app store, their app was in the top 100 gr…
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either. He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.
The innovation appears to have advanced enough that some of the 2048 variations are more akin "Doom clones" and "Roguelikes" than they are to "app store clones". But the 2048 apps that have flooded the app store and are mostly direct clones of the web 2048 versions. And they exist in a previously unnamed space between "clone" and "variation".