Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game • Hacker News Board

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#181

Post by dgreensp » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 4:15 PM UTC

My instinct is to side with the Threes devs on this, but someone has to say it: It sounds like they spent a year on the cute little faces. Original Tetris didn't do that. Also, I'm pretty sure Tetris was cloned immediately, at least privately, by pretty much any programmer with spare time who played it (because it's fun and easy to implement, like the Threes mechanic).

Is it a good thing that Threes is so hard it's like pushing a rock uphill, until you inevitably can't keep it up and it comes crashing down on you? If someone invented the 15 Puzzle today (the one where you slide the tiles around in a 4x4 grid), for example, but dressed it up and tweaked it so you couldn't beat it, people would probably start having fun with the possible version on the side.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#182

Post by abimaelmartell » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 4:42 PM UTC

I made this list with some of the variants of 2048

http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#183

Post by drewry » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 4:48 PM UTC

It's not all bad for them, I found out about threes because of 2048 and came to the conclusion myself that threes was a better game and decided to pay for it.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#184

Post by petercooper » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 4:56 PM UTC

Lots of discussion already but I wanted to throw "patents" out there as that's what it made me think of first. You can patent game mechanics to protect them (to a certain extent). Is it possible to be against patents (as many geeks seem to be) while also being against people ripping off game mechanics? If so, how?

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#185

Post by david_otoole » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 4:56 PM UTC

Don't slave for months producing easily replicable ideas in a market that is mobbed with people who replicate anything successful within days.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#186

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

m3mnoch wrote: post #177

biot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has in-game ads, so it makes no money in the same way that Flappy Bird was free and made no money.

except flappy bird retained users which led to more ad impressions. i guarantee you the retention for 2048 is crap.

[deleted]

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#187

Post by aubergene » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 5:56 PM UTC

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #34

RaphiePS wrote: post #3

Does anyone have any stats on Threes' sales? I wonder if 2048 has significantly boosted them.

I bought threes after hearing about it in the comments of a thread about 2048, I'm sure other people did too

Me too, and it's probably only the third app I've ever paid for

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#188

Post by alttab » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 5:59 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #7

> 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…

Great way of putting it.

IMO, the original developer's mistake was the "build it and they will come" strategy.

Even if you built the perfect game, the "cloners" hussled more to get people to play their game, and got traction faster.

Just because you build the perfect product, does not mean that people will use it.

We call it "marketing" and "luck"

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#189

Post by ctdonath » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 6:51 PM UTC

ijk wrote: post #159

alagappanr wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the web version is ad-free. The iOS version has ads. Its longevity I believe will be greater compared to the Threes game. What makes you think otherwise - that Threes will stay on the top for longer than 2048?

I believe the point is that 2048 has less gameplay longevity. Threes is designed to be a puzzle game that will last you the rest of your life, and no one has come close to beating it yet. 2048 can be beaten with relatively simple algorithms, so even though it is easier to pick up because its initial learning curve is shallower, people will max it out sooner.

Some of us don't want a puzzle game that will last the rest of our lives. I want something to get obsessed about for a few weeks, then move on to other things. I'd rather 2048 with its winnability (and beyond - I'm after its 8192 milestone now) than something nigh unto unwinnable.

BTW: I know there's ads on the 2048 iOS app, but don't see them. I'm barely aware of anything when playing.

Re: Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

#190

Post by ctdonath » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 6:56 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #132

DanBC wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" - even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!

Currently my most downvoted post, even though it is factually accurate and contains no opinion.

Still misleading. The 2048 creators may not have known of Threes, but were influenced by it nonetheless. An incomplete fact set imputing malice warrants downvoting.