Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Facebook Social Networks The Courts Games

EA Sues Zynga For Copying Sims Game 197

Posted by Soulskill
from the your-uppance-will-come dept.
Social game developer Zynga has been on the receiving end of complaints in the past for releasing games that look a bit too much like games from indie developers, and for other shady business practices. Now, they've run afoul of somebody with sharper teeth. Today Electronic Arts and Maxis filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Zynga claiming that The Ville is "blatant mimicry" of The Sims Social. "'This is a case of principle,' says EA Maxis general manager Lucy Bradshaw. 'Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development.' In its complaint, EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social, the Facebook edition of the EA/Maxis franchise that released in August 2011. When Zynga released The Ville last June, consumers and the press immediately pointed out that the title resembled The Sims more than a little."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Sues Zynga For Copying Sims Game

Comments Filter:
  • Rules (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Friday August 03, 2012 @06:35PM (#40873701) Journal

    Since when could you copyright game rules?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Capcom sued SNK over World Heroes being a rip off of Street Fighter 2

      Nintendo sued Data East for Karnov being a ripoff of Super Mario Bros, and also sued the makers of Gianna sisters.

      Wizards of the Coast sue anybody and everybody in sight.

      There's plenty of precedent.

      • Re:Rules (Score:5, Informative)

        by Hatta (162192) on Friday August 03, 2012 @06:46PM (#40873771) Journal

        What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:

        Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

        It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.

        • by ackthpt (218170)

          What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:

          Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

          It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.

          Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character. If there's too many examples where the character types are protrayed too similarly Zynga may find itself burned.

          • by EdIII (1114411)

            Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character

            Just how far could they have strayed?

            We are talking about a visual clue to a type of behavior. The wringing of the hands is very popular. A few others I can think of may be the western style villain playing with his mustache, or the exaggerated smile of the Grinch, or perhaps the head thrown back laughing. The last one could be misconstrued as mental instability without being a scoundrel though.

            There are only so many ways to convey this type of information, in an appropriate time period and context, and

            • Re:Rules (Score:5, Insightful)

              by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@ g m a i l.com> on Friday August 03, 2012 @09:08PM (#40874659) Journal

              Bah! You want to show they are evil you pet the kitty. Haven't you ever played Evil genius?

              Lets face it folks, Zynga has been royally buttfucking indie games devs for a loooong while now, and it looks like its time they got screwed back. Zynga doesn't just borrow ideas, they make the most blatant rips they can, copying the characters, icons, I mean we don't allow this in other media as far as i know, you can't take the movie almost word for word and just change the name to "Florist Frump" so why should you be allowed to do that to a game? Hell even the "Mockbusters" only make a sound alike title while changing the characters and situations enough its not the same movie!

              Now don't get me wrong, i think most copyrights ARE bullshit, and there are certain situations where you just can't help it. For example if a game has marines in it? Well everyone knows what marines look like so if you have those characters in your game they are gonna look like just about every other marine in a game because you are basing it on a real life subject. But with these games they aren't just ripping off the gameplay, they are ripping off the characters, the artwork, hell I've seen ROM hacks that are less off a ripoff of the source material than a Zynga game!

              If Zynga wins i could see this seriously hurting indie devs, because who in the hell is gonna want to buy your new iPhone game if the next week Zynga or some other social group has spammed out a copy from the cheap Chinese coder factory? Why should i pay for "Plants VS Zombies" when i can play "Flowers against the undead" for free and it looks and plays the same? Why should I pay for Angry Birds when I can play "ticked off turkeys" for free and side by side shots can't tell the difference between the two?

              Ultimately this doesn't hurt the big guys, who can spam the networks and radio with ads and get people to buy, it hurts the little guys who hope to get enough from their little game to keep their doors open and make the next one, because it is those guys that Zynga has been ripping off hard. The only difference between then and now is Zynga got ballsy and decided to steal from someone that can fight back.

              • Re:Rules (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Havenwar (867124) on Saturday August 04, 2012 @03:59AM (#40876189)

                Except Zynga only copies POPULAR games, so if you don't play the originals then they won't ever make a copy for you to play, so your argument falls flat. Plus in true Zynga fashion the copy will pretty much push you to spam your entire friendslist and pay real money for in-game advantages, something most other companies do much less heavy-handedly... As someone who used to be a facebook game junkie and enjoyed several games that then got Zyngafied, I've tried both sides of the coin... and in almost every case I went back to play the original. Except of course the few cases when the benefit of a massive developer house really shone through... Zynga's games might be rip-offs, but in some cases they actually play better/less buggy than the originals.

                Does Zynga hurt the indie devs? Sure. It rapes them hard and heavy... AFTER they have gone popular. AFTER they have had a chance to build a name and fan-base and revenue stream. Still rape, but clever indie devs should be expecting such possibilities and have a plan to either compete with quality, sell out, or get out when the beast rolls along.

        • The correct answer is: to waste all Zynga's money on legal fees to the point where it's not actually profitable to operate the game anymore.
          By the way, you don't mess with EA. You piss them off, they'll ride a helicopter to your house and drop a bomb on it. EA gets pretty pissy about pretty stupid shit lol. Just search "EA" on slashdot to get a good idea how they react to just about anything.
        • by M3wThr33 (310489)

          Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.

          • by gl4ss (559668)

            Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.

            haha - that's fucking classic !

            where is zynga headquartered again ?

    • Re:Rules (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz (1787294) on Friday August 03, 2012 @06:44PM (#40873759)

      Erm they didn't just copy the rules. They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too. Go have a look at their various titles. It's not simply a case of copying the concept or the engine. It's basically trying to make a very close clone artwork and all. The Tetris ruling [gametrailers.com] should make it quite clear that they are in violation, and also that the rules aren't the copyrightable bit.

      I hate EA and the copyright laws as much as the next person. But I hate Zynga more and I really hope they get their asses kicked for this.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too.

        Definitely a no-no.
        Zynga will lose.

        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          Seeing as how the EA filing also references the other (non-EA) games zynga copied, I hope the indie devs finally get some justice too.

          Why would anybody want to work at zynga? Would any other game company hire a guy that willingly worked at zynga? It seems like a career-killer to me.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Here's the legal complaint (from the Ars link): http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final [scribd.com]

        Looks like the Zynga game is a complete ripoff.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Didn't they try look & feel lawsuits in the 80's with little success? Why is it different with games?

        The Tetris ruling is a pretty bad one. Allowing the Tetris Company to copyright the entire set of tetrominoes is idiotic.

        I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.

        • Re:Rules (Score:5, Funny)

          by Internetuser1248 (1787630) on Friday August 03, 2012 @07:22PM (#40874041)

          I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.

          This is the thing, as an indy game developer myself I find it hard to decide which I hate more. I can imagine the anger I would feel if I had a popular game and it was ripped off and all my customers stolen by assholes like zynga who never contributed anything to the gaming world in their life.
          On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree. It is clear to people who appreciate good games who is bringing new innovation to an old abandoned idea, and who is ripping off other people's ip to milk profit from it. But codifying that in law is not an easy task. The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks. I guess the ideal realistic outcome is that zynga wins the court case but the bad publicity damages their reputation to such a degree that they gradually fade away. I know that is also not very realistic, people who like zynga games are not usually smart enough to understand a complex issue like this.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks

            This is the longest, loudest laugh out loud the internets have delivered to me in some time. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

          • by brit74 (831798)

            On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree.

            I don't think you need to worry about that at all unless you are taking dozens of screenshots of another game and copying them as best you can. This won't affect game developers (I'm one too) unless there some big shift in how these kinds of laws are interpreted.

      • by CmdrEdem (2229572)
        If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law. But since it's an American court that will judge this I have even less idea of what will happen.
        • Re:Rules (Score:5, Informative)

          by docmordin (2654319) on Friday August 03, 2012 @08:36PM (#40874497)

          If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law.

          There is plenty of legal precedence in US law, which pertains as the case is being argued in US, that contradicts some of your statements:

          Midway Mfg. Co., v. Dirkschneider et al. 543 F. Supp 466 (D. Neb. 1981)
          Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Elcon Industries, 564 F.Supp. 937 (E.D. Mich. 1982)
          Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
          Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
          Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983)
          Team Play, Inc. v. Boyer, 391 F.Supp.2d 695 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
          William L Crawford II et al. v. Midway Games, Inc. et al. (W.D. Cal. 2007)
          Capcom Co., Ltd. et. al. v. The MKR Group (N.D. Cal. 2008)

          To elaborate a bit from those above cases, let alone others, to establish infringement a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and "copying" by the defendant. Because direct evidence of copying often is unavailable, copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work (Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 654 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1981)).

          Some courts have expressed the test of substantial similarity in two parts: (1) whether the defendant copied from the plaintiff's work and (2) whether the copying, if proven, went so far as to constitute an improper appropriation (Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832, 88 S.Ct. 101, 19 L.Ed.2d 91 (1967)); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946); cf. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977) (extrinsic-intrinsic test)). In many cases, the courts focus on the second part of that test and the response of the "ordinary observer" (Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.), 360 F.2d 1021, 1023 n.2 (2d Cir. 1966)). Specifically, the test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectible expression by taking material of substance and value (Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164). Judge Learned Hand, in finding infringement, once stated that "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same" (Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960)). It has been said that this test does not involve "analytic dissection and expert testimony," Arnstein, 154 F.2d at 468, but depends on whether the accused work has captured the "total concept and feel" of the copyrighted work (Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970)).

          While dissection is generally disfavored, the ordinary observer test, in application, must take into account that the copyright laws preclude appropriation of only those elements of the work that are protected by the copyright (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 913 (2d Cir. 1980); Clarke v. G. A. Kayser & Sons, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 481, 482 (W.D.Pa.1979), aff'd without op., 631 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1980)). "It is an axiom of copyright law that the protection granted to a copyrightable work extends only to the particular expression of an idea and never to the idea itself" (Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 492, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976)). "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself" (Mazer v. St

      • by Maxmin (921568)

        So you mean Zynga that copied EA's actual art files and exactly reproduced their interface design, correct?

        A cursory review of the two games, side-by-side, reveals that this is not the case. Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.

        Your hate^H^H^H^H hyperbole has made you powerful.

        • by dzfoo (772245)

          Oh, you must be a hoot at parties! I bet you also are one of those that responds to annoyed friends with "that's not what I said..." and follows with a pedantic description of the technical and semantic nuances between words.

          So the images are not binary equivalent--do you really think that's what a court will consider?

                    dZ.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Dunbal (464142) *
            Nah he doesn't get invited to parties. But then again, neither do you.
            • by tbird81 (946205) on Friday August 03, 2012 @09:17PM (#40874721)

              Hey look guys. I'm planning a party in Auckland NZ tonight, and the three of you (parent, GP, and GGP) sound like great fun, I hope you can all come.

              If you can't I'll probably cancel, because it's not going to be the same without your awesome debating skills.

              • by Kalriath (849904)

                And then we can all go for a Swim at Kim's. Oh wait, if the argument's about copyright Kim would probably go for that.

          • by hellop2 (1271166)
            Considering your sig, would your statement perhaps be born out of self-reflection?

            That's cool. I do that too. But, I'd rather be right on the Internet than hang out with a bunch of imprecise idiots and their stupid boobs.
        • by thegarbz (1787294)

          Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.

          ... which in every prior case has been found to be an infringement of copyright.

          But really by all means go make a game called Munchkin. It can look like Pacman with absolutely no copying of the original code or graphics. Change the name of the characters and change the gameplay slightly. Pacman can be called Munchkin, the ghosts can be called Munchers, and Artari won't be able to sue you and win.

          Oh wait [wikia.com]

          Hard to call it hyperbole when it's based on many actual court decisions isn't it.

          • This isn't new, it predates computers by a long way. Copyright has always had the notion of a derived work. If someone wrote a story and you write a story that is more or less the same as theirs but with a few tweaks, then that can still be copyright infringement. If, however, you write one that just has a similar setting, then that's fine. If you're reusing the characters and the setting, then it starts to get into the grey area.
    • by Sir_Sri (199544)

      They aren't. EA basically ripped off the abilities in SWTOR from WoW (e.g. http://forum.gamebreaker.tv/viewtopic.php?id=3508).

      You can't completely copy a game though. In effect it's a similar problem to cover bands, design patents on square corners, and Corporate brands, they all hit on a similar problem from different directions. You can be inspired by, but you can't blatantly copy someone else or their brand features without their permission. Whether this rises to that level I don't know. But Zynga p

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      RTFA. zynga has gone through quite some effort to try and replicate EA's Sims Social to a point where the two might as well share the same code.
      This goes far betond merely using similar game rules.

    • by jxander (2605655)
      Since about the same time that you could copyright a rectangle, I'd imagine.
  • by T Murphy (1054674) on Friday August 03, 2012 @06:40PM (#40873731) Journal
    I, for one, hope that EA doesn't stop at Zynga in its pursuit of game publishers that lazily copy EA's games, instead of coming up with new ideas. That's right, I'm looking at you, EA, you better watch out as EA is coming after you next!
  • It's funny how EA does this all the time. When the UFC wanted them to help make an MMA game they turned them down. So THQ made UFC Undisputed. When that became a success EA made "EA MMA" which was a horrible copy. Never mind all the tycoon and other knockoffs, or just regurgitating every sports game annually with different names on the jerseys. I just don't have any sympathy for EA when it comes to being copied. They're the perfect example of non risk taking copiers who regurgitate the same franchises
  • by Tanman (90298) on Friday August 03, 2012 @06:52PM (#40873829)

    EA is pretty reckless with this. iD could sue everyone for copying the idea of 1st person shooters with the guns popping out the bottom of the screen, et al.

    Of course, they can't WIN such a suit. I hope the judge dismisses with prejudice. This is a potentially patent-troll-esque precedent case.

  • Zynga would never copy other peoples' games! [wikipedia.org]

  • This bullshit is Lotus 1-2-3 versus VP Planner all over again. Or Apple versus Microsoft over Windows. Apple lost that one. Lotus lost when they went after Borland over Quattro Pro. Some people don't learn from history.

    Actually Lotus had a stronger case, if anything, because the software they were fighting could read and work with Lotus files.

    • by dzfoo (772245)

      You should read some history then, because the examples you mentioned are a lot more nuanced than what you are suggesting.

      In the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, they didn't lose because "look and feel" is not protectable, they lost because they had given an overly permissive license to Microsoft, and the latter successfully argued that it covered most of the claims. And even that is just a small part of the outcome.

                dZ.

  • I'm really fed up with all this copying paranoia. Did they do their code from scratch? Did they draw their own graphics from scratch? Then yeah, welcome, that's what competition is supposed to be all about. If EA's game is the better one and they did benefit from being first to market, good for them! If Zinga did at least one improvement and people like it better and switch, good for them too. I don't like Zinga, but I'm in favor of anyone suing about something like this to fail, and fail miserably.

    Imagi
    • by bizard (691544)

      "Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."

      In all of the discussions about copyright and patents, the ranters all seem to assume that ideas float freely and all anyone needs to do is fire up the machines to produce the widgets or code it up. They neglect the fact that someone had to spend (usually a lot) of time (and often money) to conceive, test, refine and _then_ produce the book, game, widget, etc. And with all of that investmen

    • I will by your tetrahedron loaves, and they wouldn't be that hard or different to make. I would then expose the loaves to different strains of moulds and play a dangerous game of IRL Minecraft...... Then get sued by Mojang?
  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday August 03, 2012 @07:27PM (#40874081) Homepage

    Calculating sympathy for Zynga.........Done.

    Sympathy calculated: 0

    Once they started acquiring every half decent game and ruining them with more ads, bloat and cross promotion for their other crap, I started to despise them. I never even played a Zynga game intentionally, they were just thrust on me when Words with Friends and Draw Something were bought out.

    Ugh, DIAF, Zynga. Please.

    • ...is fun. But how the hell is it legal? Can you really take a game like Scrabble or Monopoly and give it a new name? And what is it about social networks that makes them ooze slime?

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdotNO@SPAMuberm00.net> on Friday August 03, 2012 @07:33PM (#40874117) Homepage Journal

    Can we declare that they both lose and remove both their apps? They're not games, they're psychological tricks to extract credit card numbers.

  • Ideas are not protected by USA copyright.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday August 03, 2012 @07:48PM (#40874213) Journal

    "I don't fucking want innovation," the ex-employee recalls Pincus saying. "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03, 2012 @07:58PM (#40874259)

    It's about copying the art and the exact interface of the game. Take a brief look at the complaint to see lots of comparison pictures [scribd.com].

    For example, SimsSocial has 8 possible skin tones for characters, and Zynga copied them down to the exact RGB values (!!). Items such as refrigerators, TVs, etc. are so similar that their outlines match up almost completely when they're overlaid on top of each other. I hate EA as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is pretty compelling stuff.

    • It isn't an absolute in the law. There isn't a "You can go precisely this far in copying," sort of thing. It depends on a number of factors. So ya, you can copy a general game style. It isn't like if one person makes a game (like an FPS or RTS or whatever) nobody can make anything at all remotely like it. However you can't go can clone a game pixel for pixel, even if all your work is "original" meaning you had a person do the copying. Well in between those two extremes lies what is acceptable.

      Zynga is all a

  • take a look at this game, Order and Chaos,
    http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/order-chaos-online/id414664715?mt=8 [apple.com]

    it's a near perfect version of World of Warcraft running on iOS and Android. the look, feel, and mechanics are near copies of WoW, but the content is different- the quests, bosses, maps, items, and so on.

    if Blizzard can't sue for this, then EA and everyone else doesn't have a prayer in going after copycats.

    BTW, OaC is quite a good game.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      if the content is different then mechanics are probably a bit different too. there's a bunch of mmo's blizzard could sue if they could sue gameloft.
      ea is arguing that the _content_ is copy in the ville too. if you had retraced all the wow maps then of course blizzard would sue.

      fyi, gameloft only does copies too, but they usually do some aspect just "wrong". for example asphalt gt's have been quite popular car games on mobiles, the graphics engines been ok on many iterations.. but, here's the big but: they s

  • If this case goes through, then what's to stop John Carmack from suing anyone who's ever made an FPS?
  • EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social

    Copyright doesn't cover ideas.

    Zynga are, IMO, scum but they're not in the wrong here. EA are being arses by claiming to own an idea....EA are, IMO, scum too.

  • "isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it."

    If you don't have "the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it", then you're shit out of luck. Justice is blind but she expects payment.

  • hy-po-cr-isy |hipäkris|
    noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
    the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

    For EA to be upset about Zynga copying its games is pure hypocrisy. It wasn't upset when Zynga copied Tiny Tower... in fact, it followed suit with its own clone [tuaw.com] called Monopoly Hotels. I mistakenly downloaded the game on my iPad thinking it was some new variant of Monopoly... it turned out to be the unholy love child of Farmville and Tiny
    • by guttentag (313541)
      OMG! I just bought this new designer umbrella and now it's all wet! It's ruined!

      3 people like this; 37 people b*tchslapped you

      Cowboyneal and 102,082 other people like this

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      unholy love child of farmville and tiny tower is still a new product.

      seemingly zynga didn't bother with such twist. they had gotten away with 1:1 clones for so long that they forgot they're copying masters of evil.

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Working...