Hi everyone !
Quick question.
Why isn’t there a sue after sue in the gaming industry (or is there ?) For example:
King developed CCS, the match-3 puzzle, but they didn’t invented this gameplay and there where like thousands of other match-3-type games earlier. Now they came up with PPS, which has the same gameplay as Peggle.
Can someone explain this to me ? Im just very confused 
Thank you
Well, if everyone was forced to come up with a completely different game (in terms of idea), we’d have millions of different genres with crappy games. Not every idea suits well to be translated into video game, therefore sometimes is better to base on something that exists and enhance it in one’s own style.
Follow ups work well in music and video industry as well.
Because if everyone sued everyone else over copied ideas there would be very few games ever made. While new ideas are introduced over time, pretty much every game around can have core elements which could be perceived to be copied from previous games. Some are more blatant than others, such as King’s games, but if they were to be sued over copying a gameplay idea then pretty much every game in existence would be able to be sued. This isn’t unique to games, you could say the same about TV shows or movies or books, that most have settings or locations or character archetypes or plot lines which are so similar to previous releases in that industry that they deserve to be sued.
Because you cannot copyright ideas and that includes game mechanics. It would be a very sad sad world if you could.
Ever eared the expression “We stand in the shoulders of giants”? Use it to your best interest.
As long as they didn’t steal any assets it’s not stealing, you can’t just copyright an idea, but you can however keep that idea a tight secret until you unveil your product and make lots of money before some one else tries to make something better.
Be glad no one tried to patent jumping and running after releasing the first jump’n’run.
Actually it’s the best strategy to copy something and make it better. With copying I don’t mean the assets but the gameplay.
I once did a very original game (I think) but it was a flop because I just didn’t know how to make the players find it. All who did (not that many) were very pleased… So well, having a good idea and a good game doesn’t mean anything.
Facebook = MySpace+…
The saying is “build a better mouse-trap”, not “Invent a whole new device that captures rodents but is not a mouse-trap”. 
Fact is the ultimately there is no such thing as being unique. Everything has at least something in common with everything else. It’s all a matter of degrees of uniqueness. Its also nothing new. Not everyone is a crazy artist that comes out with stuff the world has never seen. It’s easier to copy or make variations.
Software patents are out of control, nuff said.
Even in science, new discoveries are made by testing an older theory, but with either A) different parameters, or B) a subtle change in process that ‘should’ do a certain thing…but, instead does something more interesting.
That’s what we’re doing in gaming. We take a previously successful work (e.g. Doom) and alter something (regenerating health meter) to produce something new and successful (e.g. Halo). This is not dishonest, because A) it’s hard work, even with clear-cut mechanics like the example I just gave, and B) as long as you are not copying someone else’s IP, you’re not really stealing their idea.
It’s a very good thing that gameplay mechanics can’t be patented.
Imagine: an simple Oculus Rift /VR FPS comes out - the developers patent “Walking around in VR and Shooting stuff, while looking around with head tracking” - that’s it - no more progress/games of that type
Patents are a method of controlling people, basically. I don’t think it’s exactly fair that someone who comes up with something first, independently, gets exclusivity, because humans typically collectively express the same ideas and creativity from their own source/processes. The patents try to turn collective unity (community) into a power-hungry warzone of ownership. Who can own creative inspiration? But anyway.
Except they frequently are, especially in the case of puzzle games. Tetris anyone?
Tetris is a unique case because the components of the game are so stripped down that its difficult to make a game that is “inspired” by Tetris without creating nearly exactly the same game. Dr. Mario is a good example of a Tetris-alike that took the necessary steps to set itself apart (ie: quite a bit).
I prefer Starbound over Terraria anyday. If no one made a copy of Terraria, then we would be stuck with that crappy game. Starbound is crap too but it is still better than Terraria.
Thank you guys, everything sounds plausible.
Theres tons of games i’d like to “copy” and make better, simply because i enjoy playing them so much. Im ADDICTED to ridicoulus fishing now btw, its a seriously good game, i’d very much like to expand on Vlambeers idea for sure. I wanna use tons of old games aswell, like Bubble Bobble, Ice Climber, Joust so on so forth, and yeah, we can do that, perfectly acceptable aslong as u put the effort in it to make if a NEW game based on the same mechanics, and ofc, introduce new ones.
Im sure theres more that can be done, but right now im not in the copystate:P im making a “unique” game now and its killing me…and im sure, once we release it, there was atleast 5 of the same game already made,go figure.
