PopCap Distressed Over 'CopyCat' Games 88
GamesIndustry.biz, in an interview with PopCap Games chief creative officer Jason Kapalka, reports that the company is apparently a bit miffed at 'imitation games'. Puzzle games being what they are, Kapalka finds the number of Bejewel-like titles on the market frustrating. "Very few games are developed without reference to past games. There's always going to be titles that build on a previous mechanic or game. But there's a fine line between that and very bold-faced rip-offs that aren't adding anything to the game and are just trying to make a quick buck." Over at 1up, editor Ray Barnholt points out that PopCap is a funny company to be making that claim. Several of that group's most popular games are in turn tweaks or imitations of little-known Japanese puzzle titles from the 90s.
Irony (Score:1, Insightful)
well (Score:4, Insightful)
Copying (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Puzzle quest (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a nice concept, but it needs some serious tweaking.
Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, only more so (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course they are angry because they are afraid it means they will be making less money. They want to prevent people from producing products similar to theirs, in order to ensure that they are the only source of the product.
Unfortunately for them, their product is not a substance, but an idea. Ideas don't work like substances. Just looking at a car doesn't instantly give you car-parts to distribute, but it does instantly give you an idea for a car design. The parts can be easily controlled, but the idea can't.
This is a nice example of why the whole concept of intellectual property is such a farce. When is an idea a different idea? How many tweaks must be made? It is not possible to define absolute boundaries for this sort of thing, because ideas just don't work that way.
The better response is to use ideas in a manner that befits how they work, rather than expecting to make money off an attempt at using ideas in a way that does not suit their natures, and trying to force everyone in the world to pretend that ideas work the way you think they should.
Imitation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree, only more so (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah... we are on SlashDot, aren't we.
Only here can somebody take an issue that doesn't involve intellectual property (a company angry about their ideas being ripped off, which isn't against the law), and use it to damn all intellectual property. . I swear we could have a story on walruses, and someone would twist it into a scathing attack on the RIAA.
Copyright, for example, is pretty easy to understand and distinguish. If you copy my song, my movie, my program, without my license you have violated my copyright. If you copy my idea, you have not.
Sure it can be more complicated than that, but 99% of copyright issues are just that simple.