Slashdot Mirror
Is Dong Nguyen Trolling Gamers With "Swing Copters"?
Nerval's Lobster writes Given its extreme difficulty, it's tempting to think that the new Swing Copters is Dong Nguyen's attempt at a joke (You thought 'Flappy Bird' was hard? Check this out!), or maybe even a meta-comment on the emerging "masocore" gaming category. Or maybe he just wanted to make another game, and the idea of an ultra-difficult one appealed. Whatever the case, Nguyen can rely on the enduring popularity of Flappy Bird to propel Swing Copters to the top of the Google and iOS charts. But his games' popularity illuminates a rough issue for developers of popular (or even just semi-popular) apps everywhere: how do you deal with all the copycats flooding the world's app stores? Although Google and Apple boast that their respective app stores feature hundreds of thousands of apps, sometimes it seems as if most of those apps are crude imitations of other apps. The perpetual fear among app developers is that they'll score a modest hit—only to see their years of hard work undermined by someone who cobbles together a clone in a matter of weeks or days. If Apple and Google want to make things friendlier out there for developers, they might consider stricter enforcement policies for the blatant rip-offs filling their digital storefronts.
Point out literally any trivial mistake in any popular platform or game, and they(they being self-identified gamers) will inexplicably act as if you have invented the most vile insults about their parentage.
Honestly, my observation is that it's harder to not troll gamers than to do so.
This is a non-story ...
As it was already pointed out on reddit.com//r/gamedev ... Dong Nguyen got extremely lucky with Flappy Bird. The game is cheesy but it has focused game design making it a "good" game.
Of course everyone will be watching if he can replicate his success with Swing Copters. The controls aren't that great but everyone is waiting to see how it will do.
Trolling? No, just another game dev trying to follow up on his success. Just like Notch "failed" at his "Scrolls" project.
The key to outshining the imitators is to keep updating and iterating on your app, it will maintain it's appeal over other apps that will be constantly playing catchup.
Not only that, but you also need to be able to recognise when it's time to move on to pastures new. These throwaway games are a one off hit, and who knows, doodle jump may still be turning a small profit for it's creators these years later.
Today's developers seem to be under the impression that once they've developed and released a product it's somehow their right to have sanctity over the ideas within it.
I just wanted to post "trolling with a swinging dong" and have it be relevant to the story for once.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
so, is it good or is it whack?
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Clearly, if he were trying to troll he'd have named it "ROFLcopters!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Gee, I dunno. Maybe ask some of the big studios that squeeze out sequel after sequel of identical games that look in no way different than the identical games offered by the studio next to it?
It's not like that phenomenon is unique to the handheld gaming market. You get the same kind of crap on PC as well. A thousand similar FPS combat about as many RTS clones for popularity.
And since AI is hard, you get the same shit with crappy AI from the Indie devs and call it Zombie shooter, since you're kinda expecting a zombie to be kinda mindlessly dumb, so nobody is gonna complain about an AI too dumb to dodge simple pits with mindless straight-to-the-player pathing. Actually, I'm kinda astonished that only a few big studios jumped on the latest Z-shooter fad to cut corners.
And of course mix in the load of "Minecraft meets $genre" games we've been thrown at recently. From Minecraft-zombieshooter to Minecraft-spacerace, everything's available.
You think the handheld market is full of copycats? Compared to the PC market they're petty amateurs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wouldn't the rating system help hide the cheap knock-offs, or is the sad fact that people can't tell the difference?
Maybe the rating system should be like rottentomatoes, where there is the "audience rating" and "somehow accredited professional critics ratings", and the app's position in the store searches/listings could be a weighted sum of both of those, and the app store user could adjust their weighting toward more audience score or more critics score. (Before you patent that obvious concept, consider this post prior art)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
At first I thought, "years of hard work"? How can this be when clones fill up the store in a matter of days? Doesn't seem like it is that much work. Then I thought, well perhaps designer spends years designing a game with all sorts of clever ideas then copiers use them all a few days after release. I have to ask, though, is this what happens? Surely a game must spend some time before becoming popular enough to copy, during which it builds a following and has first mover advantage. Copiers can't copy those advantages. It seems like it is still worth doing to many since folks are still making games for these platforms.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
So when someone expends significant effort and time to develop something we want to ensure that they realize the benefit for their work. The challenge is that once the work has been done, it is easy for someone else to copy it and steal your profits (because they avoided all the development costs).
What is being asked is for an institution, such as Google or Apple, to take steps to prevent other from copying one's work.
Put another way, the ask is that Google/Apple create a private patent system.
I have to laugh that when developers want to take advantage of other people's work, they condemn patents, but when they find their own work being cloned suddenly they are clamoring for someone to come in and protect their work...
On person’s “blatant rip off” is another person’s “Words with Friends.”
While coming up with good game mechanics is important to a successful game, if it takes you years to develop a game, and someone else can copy it in weeks or days, then you're probably doing something seriously wrong. Either your game is too trivial, or you weren't a very good developer to start with.
Yaz
I wouldn't be surprised if the cheezburger blog network, or some other organisation of the same vein, had already trademarked that term
This is an idiotic who had a mental breakdown (or whatever) and removed FB because it was "too hard and ruined peoples loves", after he staged a meltdown online where he blatantly lied and said that the amount of money he was raking in was too much and posed a threat to himself because of where he lived in the world.
IMHO, this jackass should have been banned from the App Store with all the shenanigans he pulled. Now you jackasses are giving him free PR again, because he wrote another shitty HTML5 game that is once more purportedly "too hard". Nice.
Wow. This guy proves i kan reed's point IMMEDIATELY.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
brought to you by the shameless-ad-revenue-dept
So, yeah, I downloaded Swing Copters. And then I played it... for about two minutes.
Nguyen stated he wanted to come up with a game that was "less addictive" than Flappy Birds, and I think he accomplished that - by creating a new game that will almost certainly irritate and annoy most people very quickly. That game is freaking impossible!
#DeleteChrome
The original creator comes up with the idea, usually among many ideas. Then they have to decide which one to go with. Then you have to design and implement, refine, and see what works, until you have something worth releasing.
Then you might have to put the effort into social media or advertising.
Then you might become popular.
Then someone else looks at what you created and breaks the concept down into components that are easily reproducible in a day or two, while their artist copies your art. They flood the store with them.
The only real counter to something like that is to create a game that's complicated enough that reproducing the game mechanics that make it popular takes long enough that the clones don't come out in time to bite into the profit during the critical first week/month.
Basically Nguyen has managed to commercialize the "deliberately worthless" control scheme of QWER that is "just" simple enough to make your brain say "hey, this is simple, so it should be easy!" QWER was magical because your brain says "I know how walking works, I can do this". same with Flappy Bird, your brain says "I get gravity" and you spend 30 minutes swearing at the screen, but sort of having fun. I tried Swing Copters, and it has none of the things that made the first two "addicting" because it lacks that little tiny bit of intuitiveness that the others had. While Copters has the same theory, in my mind, it lacks the core feature, thus making it infuriating, without any of the fun.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Thomas Edison was one of numerous scientists that were working on similar "inventions". Scientists shared notes and findings which lead to the invention of the filament bulb, but it surely was not one guy doing all of the work.
The patent system gave a monopoly to Edison and isolated every other scientist that worked on the bulb reducing "their" work to non-existence a short time later. It did not help anything in science, and the only person that benefited was "Edison".
The same guy by the way, that staged live executions to show how dangerous AC was and cost Tesla numerous contracts (one of numerous publicity stunts to help his own career and harm others). It only cost Tesla most of his funding. It only took us a century to figure out what a genius Tesla really was and what a dickhead Edison really was.
I'm sure we could spend time digging and find a patent that is not complete bullshit, but your example is surely not one of the few.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It took a lawsuit for Atari to kill KC Munchkin ... and even then they only won on appeal : http://www.mathpirate.net/log/...
If KC Munchkin was a rip-off of Pac Man, then every first person shooter is a rip-off of Wolf 3D. (which might've been a rip-off of Space Simulation).
Don't get me wrong -- there needs to be something done about people making crappy games and tricking people into buying it (eg, The War Z), but once in a while, someone makes a *better* game that's similar to something that already exists (eg, Arkanoid vs. Break Out).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Dong Nguyen(Win)!
>> their respective app stores feature hundreds of thousands of apps, sometimes it seems as if most of those apps are crude imitations of other apps
Is the poster new to computers? This clutter has been the case with software since it first reached the consumer. (e.g., RPG games in the 1980s, etc.)
This is why:
1) It's good to be the PLATFORM (you get paid no matter what apps sell).
2) It's good to be a CONSUMER (you get zillions of choices).
3) Being a DEVELOPER is hard, and making a living trying to sell apps to consumers is ever harder (see #1 and #2).
Do you really think Google and Apple are going to bite the hand of Zynga, King, et al. when such a huge proportion of their app store profit comes from their blatant ripoff games?
Bullet hell has been around for a while, there were tons of games that were hard because they were broken, and 'Nintendo hard' is older than dirt, and variations that are nigh impossible for human players have been popular for years (think Kazio Mario). 'Masocore' is not an emerging genre.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No Lt. Dan to save you either, Forrest http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Is this article about hard games or copy-cat games or making app stores more friendly to developers or making app stores more strict (and thus less friendly) with developers?
You sure "talk a good game" (pun intended): Back it up instead of running, 'Forrest' http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
The rating system on app stores are too generic.
And considering 90% of all the apps get like 4.5 stars, the ratings are comepletly useless.
The top downloaded lists are much better, but that makes it near impossible for a new app to get any attention.
When you are looking for apps, you usually are looking for something specific.
For example, I was looking for a professional drawing/painting tool for my kid.
About 99.999% of these apps are more like coloring books for kids.
While there were some very nice tools, none on the top 100 downloaded had the right mix I was looking for.
And some had many of the features i wanted, but were severely lacking in implementation.
A good example may be to compare two top-rated drawing apps.
They are both highly rated and have a ton of downloads, but one is geared for kids and one is geared for professional.
Which app is 'best' for me depends on what I am actually looking for. If I want something for my 6-year old to finger-paint with, I definately do NOT want the pro tools.
I think Apple and Google should driving developers to produce better apps instead of more apps.
And the best apps should be sitting on the top of the hill.
One way I would suggest would be to have a Tag/Rating system. This would allow developers to tag their apps with all the different features they want.
Then users could rate each tag separately.
So for example a drawing app could have a tag for a blur tool (among others). Users could then give a rating specifically for that feature.
Prospective downloaders could then search for apps with that specific set of features and compare apps side by side.
search for: Drawing/painting apps
pick from most tagged:
kids
professional *
easy
color picker *
layers *
bucket fill *
brushes *
Blurr tool *
share on facebook
(and more)
App1
professional - 4
color picker - 5
layers - 3
bucket fill - 4
brushes - 3
Blurr tool - 1
-Total score: 20
App2
professional - 4
color picker - 4
layers - 2
bucket fill - 4
brushes - 3
Blurr tool - 4
-Total score: 21
The same functions could apply to games.
This would help developers compete by showing them what people are looking for, and where there apps need improvement.
Also, there is much logic that could be added beyond the ratings. -How often are apps USED as opposed to downloaded?
Do certain reviewers give blanket 10's? And many ways to get new apps rated.. Can I (automatically) get a free copy of this new app if I agree to rate it?
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
What does this have to do with ultra-conservative wackos?
Those original games are blatant rip-offs as well.
Angry Birds? Flappy Birds? I had similar games on my C64 and those were probably already copies of similar games on Atari and earlier computers.
Except for the eye-candy, these games could be programmed by anyone taking a basic programming/gaming 101 course.
Wait, shouldn't the concern be that it is not open sourced to promote copying and enhancements?
QWER? Do you mean QWOP?
Are we supposed to know who all people with generic vietnamese names are?
I know that the versions of don't-touch-white and 2048 that I have aren't the "originals." They were the most popular ones at the time I jumped in because they're better. The devs start with a rip-off and then add more interesting features that the original didn't have. With dead simple microgames like this, it's easy for each game to become its own little subgenre, with new ideas being layered on by each iteration. If we "protect" the original versions of these things, it will only make crappy games crappier by removing the innovative force that pushes time-wasters to become real entertainment.
Regardless of how "trolled" any one feels by this he gets an ad hit every time the user looses a round in the game. So do they pay him with a bucket of cash or just Apple store credit?
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
you spend years making games that bomb until you hit on one idea that works and that clicks with people.
Basically, years of honing your game design skills and trying new ideas and then someone comes along and copies your mechanics and your game is irrelevant just like that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Make a game which is simple to understand but impossibly difficult.
2. Make it free with an iAd banner for revenue.
3. Withdraw the game as soon as the feeding frenzy begins and the media pick up on it.
4. Repeat.
Consumers love nothing more than a freebie in limited supply.
Dong's limited editions.
There's a new iPhone coming out and I'd like to upgrade. ;)
My fingers are crossed that he pulls it so I can sell my current iPhone, with this latest game installed, for twice the price of the new iPhone 6
it seems it has many incarnations.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
In fairness, there was no scrabble app when words with friends came out.
Not only that, but flappy birds was a shitty ripoff of a flash game I played 10 years ago using art assets more or less directly stolen from Mario. I don't see how he wasn't already trolling us.
Nope. But only because they can't see past that. Soon there won't be originals for zynga to rip off.
Why are we "ensuring" anything? We (or at least those of us in the U.S.) live in a (semi) free market. Bringing anything to market is a risk, so, just because someone makes an effort to create something, that doesn't mean that they should get any insurance that their effort will be profitable. The last thing I want is more companies added to the "IP Police" mix. It's not good for real innovation (think Linux). And, a lot of this could have been avoided by trademarking the name of his game. Branding is important, and it's high time programmers started to understand this. Use the current IP protection channels, and stop being lazy by expecting others to protect your IP for you.
And, if your game is cloned within a 24 hour period, then I hesitate to even call it a game. Talk about pathetically trivial.
"years of hard work undermined by someone who cobbles together a clone in a matter of weeks or days"
Sorry but if I can reproduce the game in entirety in days, then what you've done is years of dicking around.
It's time we stopped babying everyone who got the hang of 2D graphics and sound in Android like they've invented the internet.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Smash Copters
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rivalbits.coptersmasher