Live data from Hacker News

Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

asherv.com

191–200 of 218 posts

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

#191
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. That was my initial reaction to that statement as well, but upon reading on I realized that's not the point they're trying to make. They're not saying "respect our efforts," they're saying "we spent a year on designing this to be challenging and replayable," and they go on to provide evidence for their claims of superiority.

It's almost a shame they spent so much time talking about 2048; it takes away from the point I gleaned: to make something simple and "obvious" takes a ton of work. I've spent months on designs, and felt bad because the end design was so obvious . "Why didn't I think of that in the first place?"

It may be very hard to make an idea's time come, but once it arrives it's almost trivial & unstoppable. The "four minute mile" (running) was considered impossible ... until someone did it (under adverse conditions to boot), then it almost immediately became the norm for serious runners. The tablet as we know it was pursued for decades with resounding failure ... until Jobs nailed it with the iPod Touch, then variants proliferated. Threes took months of nuanced polishing and nobody had anything like it ... until it was released, then 2048 et al was created & became unstoppable almost overnight.

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

#192
post #95
post #46

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…

Would it not be fair to say that because 1024 is free it's taking sales away from Threes? They might be doing fine, maybe they deserve to do better.

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

#193
post #42

> 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…

Right. So we're on hackernews celebrating ripoffs and clones.

Most products are little different from other products. New products are soon copied if they are "ideas whose time has come".

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

#194
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What malice am I imputing?

One of the clones was amde without being aware of Threes!, other people are using the term "rip off", not me.

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

#195
post #168
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I really like this comment. And I realize that sentence alone is pretty pointless, so I'll expand on it a little: One of the huge sources of cognitive dissonance I have in HN and startups in general (and this is coming from someone who is explicitly not a startup/SV person, though I find it a great spectator sport and a wonderful font of knowledge) is the clash of lean against polish. I felt like I've spent the…

I've played both games. It's definitely true that 2048 appeared in a world where threes was popular. But it isn't the case that a bunch of effort improved threes over the simpler 2048. Yes, it is simpler, easier. Sometimes that's exactly why a game is better. I can appreciate that the threes creators spent months working on their game, presentation, etc. To my taste, the result is poorer than 2048. Another fun factor…

You are missing the point - 2048 was a clone that is free riding on the work done to design Threes.

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

#196

> 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…

The point is that the work they did led to the clones. Even if the clones are incrementally better they are free riding.

If investments in innovation and design result in returns only for cloners, they will not be made, and we will all suffer.

It is simply false to say 'all they care about is how to get the best product for the best price'. They also care about cool new stuff. Unfortunately, they don't connect the two.

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

#197
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair point in terms of ethics. I guess I was talking about originality.

I think the true originality is pretty hard to come by. There's nothing new under the sun.

Unless, like the creators of Threes, you spend months on painstaking design.

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

#198
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to look it up and saw I was missing a part of the story. They first released the game as a flash mini-game called Radical Fishing. The whole strange story is here: http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461458/cloning-case-files-...

That was a lesson on how NOT to launch idea you want to monetise — why anybody would want to pay fro something they have already for free? :)

They may not have realized how successful a concept it was until they had released the flash version.

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

#199
post #169
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you, but I'm curious about this bit: > I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat. I've never played 1024. Could you explain how it "sands [the ideas] down" and and "is easier to grasp"? I found Threes sim…

Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move. That threes doesn't do this makes it look like the prototype, no matter how much thought went into it. Threes then seems more like a combination of this concept and a 15 puzzle.

> Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move

I see. That's now how I play so I wouldn't have thought of that.

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

#200
post #176

Rip-offs are sad, but the fact that you spent 14 months doesn't make it a better game. It means you took too long to make it. Threes is a great game that has done well, but the vast vast majority of mobile apps don't make enough money to justify spending 14 months on. I really hope that wasn't full time work. Also, time/effort/money spent developing a game does not make it better or worse than other games. Some dead…

Please tell us, what is the correct amount of time to spend writing a game?

I'd suggest not spending so much time that you'd have to basically hit the lottery to not lose money on it. There is no "correct" amount of time, but the odds of losing money is really really high when you spend 14 months on an iPhone game. They happen to hit that lottery and so they are doing well, but the odds were not in their favor.

Take a look at your expected payout and budget your time and money accordingly. I know the app store is like a lottery, but you can make it so that your default is closer to break even with a lottery ticket, instead of default of losing tons of money with a possible lottery ticket.

Post reply on HN