Slashdot Mirror
Zynga Accused of Cloning Hit Indie iPhone Game Tiny Tower
FrankPoole writes "Indie iPhone game developer Nimblebit is accusing social games giant Zynga of ripping off its popular mobile title Tiny Tower. Nimblebit's Ian Marsh got word out about the similarities between Dream Heights and Tiny Tower with an image that's still making the Twitter rounds. The image is made up of screenshots showing how Dream Heights' interface and gameplay mechanics appear strikingly similar to Tiny Tower's."
Nimblebit just got a tonne of marketing over this - who cares about the ripoff? marketing 101 => success!
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Making similar games is perfectly fine. If the basic idea is good, why not have multiple games implement it? Nobody is claiming that every single shooter is a Doom ripoff or that every single strategy game is a Dune ripoff.
Ideas have to be free so they can be used by everyone for everyones benefit.
http://i.imgur.com/ajaYt.jpg
OK it does look like they cloned the game but you can't copyright the ideas behind a game only the artwork and the like. Though there are people who would like to extend copyright in this way and are to a certain extant succeeding.
See the thread a few hours ago on Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright.
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimTower
Or as they say, 'everything is a remix'.
Sorry but "that" screenshot just destroys their case for them. The Zynga version has more options, extremely different options, totally different graphics, different UI, everything.
I don't think they have a case here, and it's NOT like their game was new and building a genre of its own (I hereby give you SimTower / Yoot Tower, which lets you upgrade elevators and put shops on the floors too - from fecking 1994).
You expect me to get all riled about Zygna ripping off your game, but actually I'm more riled that you *THINK* they are ripping off something that you *THINK* is somehow *your* game. They're not, and it isn't.
If you copy a big company, the big company will sue you out of existence.
If you copy a small company, the small company will complain so hard you better watch out!
Steals someone elses game... Color me SHOCKED!
Too bad you're not a media mafia member. You could use the police, feds, and judges to raid zynga and shut them down for infringment.
Get over yourself. You're all just trying to make a quick buck doing the same stuff all over again on a new platform. Also, careful with the sarcastic messages to the future defendant. Why exactly aren't you already suing Zynga? No case? No guts?
This is more about moral rules than the law.
So should Linus Torvalds and the GNU project "morally" not have cloned UNIX when making GNU/Linux?
Can we pair stories and see what happens?
X stories down we just had "Your photo infringes on his photo because it contained similar design elements". Now we have "Zynga accused of infringing on Nimblebit's version because it contains similar design bits"? Yet our reactions are *different*?
Why aren't that first photographer happy that the second one "handed over free marketing"?
I think we just stumbled on a new flaw in copyright besides the other famous ones: That there are *different classes* of works, but only one copyight law! So we have the same law handling Red Buses In Photos and Nimblebit Games and Twilight Movies. So the judges are handing down rulings that almost make sense for one class of works, and lead to frightening results in the other classes, with lawyers eating it all for dinner.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
where the most popular game is a clone of a years old flash game
Let's see... when I was a kid in the days of Apple ][, these neighbors of ours (Stoltzfus family) came up with a graphical programming language.
They showed it to Apple, hoping that Apple would buy. Apple strongly considered it, and then returned it, saying that they weren't interested.
A year later, they came out with Apple Logo, which was immensely popular.
I'm not at all saying it is okay -- but it does happen.
Just to finish the story -- and to explain why I gave the family name, because it is a matter of public record -- about the time I was graduating from college, the same family came up with another killer app. This time, they marketed it themselves. The program was "Rosetta Stone".
No thanks to honest dealing by Apple, but eventually, they did okay.
Oh, by the way, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for Apple on their complaints about being ripped off by Google. I'm all for justice, but I'm not all for piecemeal justice that is selectively good for some parties and not others.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Zynga? Copy someone else's Game?
I'm Shocked! Shocked, I say!
We're all full up on Crazy here...
Just a few stories below is the story about a judge claiming that a similar composition is copyright infringement, while clearly insane, how would this ruling apply to these two games? Well BOTH are first and foremost SimTower ripoffs. And that just asumes that SimTower was not based on something else.
Every idea is based on another idea. Where do you stop with copyright infringement when somebody copies an idea? Where would /. be if the idea of a forum was granted copyright?
As bad as it may be to swallow, for a large part this is just life and we got to accept it. If I open a bakery with real bread in the US, I just got to accept that then anyone from the EU can do the same and start selling real food in the US (I been to the US, god knows there is a market for it).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Both games pretty much look like SimTower to me.
They have been ripping off other games forever! Farmville was a rip off of FarmTown. Mafia wars was a rip off of MobWars! This company is only a copy cat company that can not create its own games!
The reaction is about the big 500lb gorilla of mobile gaming copying the little indie's idea, not necessarily about the copying of ideas in general. I think most people here would say in an ideal world ideas shouldn't be copyrightable and whoever comes up with the best implementation deserves our money. However, in the world we live in these things are copyrightable and the injustice that the bullies of the industry get away with copying yet come down hard on those who copy them is what provokes the reaction.
..that the Zynga game is more polished, with better graphical presentation. Maybe they had more drones to work on it.
Many games boast similar ideas and the original game looks so like Theme xxxxxxx or Sim xxxxxx played on a PC, they can hardly claim originality.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I remember very well. In the remote year of 2011 Zynga was accusing Vostu of cloning some of their game.
Also in 2009 Zynga was sued for Copyright infringement, this time the settlement was filled by Psycho Monkey, due to the game Mafia Wars.
It seems that there is something very supicious happening with Zynga.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
When they hear about this.
This is pretty much business as usual for Zynga.
No, I think you've discovered a flaw in the slashdot groupthink. THis is software, after all, there are, supposedly, completely different rules when it comes to software, because as a rule, that's what we're into, and it should therefore have different rules that suit us better. Nevermind that for the most part we don;t quite understand art or creative works, or how design and media like games can qualify as creative works.
It seems that there is something very supicious happening with Zynga.
Well? Spit it out then - your post gives very little indication of what it is you actually suspect.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
In general a small development house cannot successfully sue a multi million dollar company, whether the case is valid or not is irrelevant as multi-million dollar lawyers will pretty much tweak any law to permit just about anything.
What did Andrew S. Tanenbaum clone? From the front page of the MINIX web site: "MINIX 3 is a new UNIX clone".
If nimblebits is worried about the zynga deal, why aren't they worries about http://www.mobage.com/mobile? Unless that's partner or something, because they have a game tiny tower with identical looks and from what I've read identical game play minus one or two very minor missing options found on the iPhone version
Yeah but it is kinda sad a guy can bust his ass making something unique only to have some scumbum company like Zynga bold face copy the thing.
Likewise it's kinda sad that Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie can bust their asses making something unique only to have some scumbum company like FSF bold face copy the thing. Or are you trying to say cloning the functionality of a computer program is OK as long as the publisher of the clone is one of Slashdot's darling companies?
I'm an indie game developer, and if a giant like Zynga approached me wanting to buy my company or the rights to the game, I could either:
1) Take the pile of cash, then go start another company.
2) Refuse. After all, the game is my baby, right?
If I took route #2, I should not at all be surprised if the megacorp then decided to clone my game. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't. Zynga certainly seems like a seedy company, but in this case it looks like they deserve some kudos for actually approaching the devs before cloning the game.
Methods of operation are explicitly not copyrightable in my country (17 USC 102(b)). I'd assume that game play mechanics are methods of the game's operation. Nor are any graphical elements that necessarily follow from the method of operation, per the merger doctrine.
So what if one company's software got "ripped off" by another company? That's a good thing; it promotes competition between the two companies to create a better version of the game.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
one by Hasbro on copyright infringement [...] "The YUMMY DOUGH product was promoted in the United Kingdom as 'The edible play dough'"
I don't see copyright infringement there, just trademark infringement, despite that the two have been conflated of late into "intellectual property".
All the gameplay elements are 100% identical.
But would you agree that gameplay elements are the "methods of operation" of a game?
I see absolutely nothing whatsoever in Dream Heights that isn't in Tiny Tower.
And I see nothing in Free games like KBlocks that isn't in Tetris.
Tiny Tower, while inspired by SimTower, definitely expands upon SimTower by adding in people management. SimTower was strictly a tower building sim. If Dream Height is identical to Tiny Tower in features and UI with the only difference being a difference in graphics this would be very much like the photo case from earlier. The question is whether the different graphics is sufficient enough to make it a true derivative work rather than creating a clone of the original work or basically does it satisfy the originality requirement.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
One is about the government passing judgement on the issue. One is just about a dick company continuing to be a dick.
There's nothing suspicious. Zynga is fairly straightforward about what they do: take existing popular games and clone them. Zynga has the R&D muscle to polish up the graphics and get them out the door in a fairly expeditious fashion. Now, at times, they will simply buy out these games. They tried to buy Tiny Tower before cloning it. Frankly, there's no shortage of earlier games that Tiny Tower is imitating either. All this is right now, is free publicity for both Tiny Tower and Dream Heights. As long as this battle is fought in the media and not the courts, they both win.
However, KBlocks is not developed by a massive corporation making fistfuls of money on the game.
Yet the Fedora project funded by Red Hat distributes both KBlocks and Quadrapassel.
If Zynga released KBlocks as a Facebook game then the Tetris people would sue them and win.
As far as I know, every case brought by The Tetris Company has settled out of court. But how are the similarities between Tetris and KBlocks not a consequence of their common method of operation?
I thought it was well understood that this was Zynga's business model:
(1) look for and coming mobile games
(2) quickly copy found game and throw a big stack of servers at the back end so that its online play will scale
(3) profit!
Oh yeah, and there was something in there about flogging your workers in a very typical game industry sweat shop. All the stories I've heard coming out of Zynga was that it truly is crunch mode 100% of the time there.
"Yeah, I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday, mkay? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, we're still behind schedule so I also need you to come in on Sunday."
Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
Zynga has a well storied and much written history of taking other people's games, cloning them and then making a bundle of cash. Basically every *ville game they make is a virtual ripoff of someone else's initial idea.
This does not surprise me, not one bit.
Somewhere, a lawyer is filling his fountain pen and getting a hungry gleam in his eye... a hunger for suing that is...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Nimblebit accused of cloning Sim Tower.
because Tiny Tower is so original.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How can this be true?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Are you referring to a baredface lie?
When you say Tiny Tower "expands" upon SimTower, you must be using the word in a manner I'm not familiar with. SimTower was fun, and always gave you something to do. You could build your tower however you liked, and you could have more than one elevator. It wasn't just trying to get you addicted to fork over money for "Tower Bux". Also, there isn't much "management" in Tiny Tower. The game (if you want to call it that, I wouldn't) is simplistic and more of a chore than anything else.
It started back in Team Fortress Classic
... but honestly, there isn't much to copy. Tiny Tower is a very simplistic "game" that has so few things to do, it would take long to copy and improve upon. This is the extent of the game:
1. Click on roof to build floor... wait for floor to build or rush it for a fee.
2. Click to build one of a few different types of businesses or apartments... wait for business to build or rush it for a fee.
3. Wait for person to move into apartment or rush it for a fee.
4. Click on person to have them work at business. Have them stock business... wait for stocking to complete or rush it for a fee.
5. Wait for stock to sell or rush it for a fee.
6. Wait for more people to move or rush it for a fee.
7. Play the equivalent of Where's Waldo occasionally to earn a Tower Bux.
8. Move the elevator with a passenger in it occasionally to earn a few coins or sometimes a Tower Bux.
9. Repeat steps 1 through 8 repeatedly for longer and longer periods of time or costing more and more Tower Bux.
It's important to note that when you first start playing, Steps 1 through 5 are rushed for you in order to get you hooked, otherwise you'd be waiting for awhile with nothing to do and think the game was a stupid, boring, waste of time.
Not hard to copy, and not much of a game to begin with.
It started back in Team Fortress Classic
Wouldn't the likeness of Tiny Tower be considered trademark?
Trademarks don't cover methods of operation either. See Functionality doctrine.
level for level copy
I agree that a level-for-level copy is more likely copyright infringement.
Fact is that unless you copy a new design of monopoly or use a similar name to "Monopoly" (which is trademarked), Parker Brothers has no legal argument.
The game principle was patented in 1904 and 1924.
Clearly, the patents duration has ended by now.
Also, game rules are not enforcable as rights in many countries, although a particular rule text might be still under copyright.
However, I can say that I'm sure that a court would rule sensibly, I mean, when Apple suing Samsung for copying a form factor (i.e. the dimensions of a device) can result in an injunction, what other sillyness can pass by a court?
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
EA should sue both of them, that looks like a stripped down version of SimTower.
Meh, they're all stupid flash games in the end.
If you know who committed a murder, you provide this information to the police, and the D.A. prosecutes. We know who cloned UNIX; why haven't Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Linus Torvalds, and the FSF been prosecuted?
I remember very well. In the remote year of 2011 Zynga was accusing Vostu of cloning some of their game.
Also in 2009 Zynga was sued for Copyright infringement, this time the settlement was filled by Psycho Monkey, due to the game Mafia Wars.
It seems that there is something very supicious happening with Zynga.
Huh? There's been many articles already written about Zynga's business practices by ex employees. Zygna doesn't design games. They copy other successful games, rename them and market it under the Zynga name. They don't to even hide it. So I don't see why this is a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 5 years...
Zynga has the R&D muscle to polish up the graphics and get them out the door in a fairly expeditious fashion.
R&D? Retread & dupe?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Fuck them. They demand your complete phone contact list in order to play the game.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Maybe not, but then again no one is filing a lawsuit against them either. This is more about ethics than legality.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I thought everyone knew Zynga's method of game development was to find a game, give it a slightly different UI and sell with ads all over the place.
...know what? I'm so sick of this "angry birds is a ripoff of crush the castle" bullshit. The first time I saw a thread complaining about this, I went out and purchased crush the castle to see for myself. Bullshit. CTC is a fucking shitty game with 0-style and 0-replay value, sloppy implementation of touch controls and sloppy design. Saying angry birds is a ripoff of CTC is like saying a Nissan GTR is a ripoff of 1971 Ford Pinto. Bullshit.
I find this almost impossible to believe. crush the castle is terrible. It's a terrible, terrible game. I want my 0.99c back. I can't believe I paid the same price as angry birds.
It is a terrible implementation of the ballistics game concept. I call Shenanigans on your reply.
Except they didn't actually steal the ideas, Xerox opened up their labs in exchange for letting them buy 100,000 shares of Apple stock for $10 each. At today's stock price of $447.47, they could have made a nice profit, even if the tech they received was probably worth a lot more than that (guessing they sold them long ago), and ignoring they could have bought the shares on the open market even cheaper around 2002. While Xerox had great ideas their implementations were very crude, and Xerox probably did not have the culture to turn that tech into a Mac.
The idea that "great artists steal" implies that the designer takes great ideas, but builds something substantially better with those ideas. Otherwise it is simply a "copy".
Now if only there was something about ideas not being copyrightable.. I wonder if there was some significant precedent set over copying "look and feel?" I wonder if a video game has ever been copied before?
In your paragraph about Zynga, it appears you're using plagiarism in the academic sense of "no credit" rather than in the copyright law sense of "infringement with no credit". But which is the key element that gets GNU off the hook? Is it giving credit to the UNIX heritage, or is it distribution of the result under a free software license? A problem with giving credit to the author of the older work is that unless it's done very carefully, giving credit can introduce trademark problems if there's any way for an end user to interpret it as implying an endorsement of the clone by the older work's author or publisher.
you're assuming the stock never split when you say they could have bought the shares on the open market in 2002 for less
talk about whether "look and feel" extends to the placement of, well, every location (consider just four controls and four corners of the screen: that's like 24 combinations." Copy across ten screens like that, and you have a very vast amount of unique creative content that is being lifted. Even without a SINGLE sprite or visual or line of code -- simply design choices like that. Any copyright protection?