"They would sit and look at competitive products and write down all the features and make it obvious to us," the designer says. One contractor says he was offered freelance work from Zynga, related to mimicking a competitor's application, with explicit instructions: "Copy that game."
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/zynga_pincus_cop...
Pincus was heard yelling at employees,
"I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."
http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-09-08/news/farmvillains/
Standing on the shoulders of giants generally means you evolve or build upon your predecessor. I haven't played either game, but this looks to be a plain reimplementation of the game right down to the mechanics with little or no change.
Based on other similar news stories in the past, it seems like this is Zynga's general business plan. While it appears profitable and is legal, it's hardly a laudable practice.
I could do a screen-for-screen comparison of Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 and you would have a hard time telling them apart. Each actually has distinct gameplay that sets it apart. I think it's a stretch to say there's clearly "little or no change" from 4 cherry-picked screenshots.
Zynga has actually had an improving track record in the last 6 months with Adventure World, Hidden Chronicles and Dream Zoo. They're still sticking to "hit" genres, but they have been pushing out of cloneville and taking more risks.
I see where you're coming from but I'd have to disagree. Battlefield and Call of Duty are both in a pretty much generic first person shooter genre.
The game made by Nimblebit looks like a fairly specific and deliberate Sim type game designed in a specific way for mobile devices. I think the screenshots chosen are good enough to come to the conclusion that it's a clone.
I'm not denying that it's a clone. I'm saying that Zynga's "ripoffs" have gone from literal feature-for-feature clones to progressively more "innovative" titles in the last 5 years. Back in 2007, my game was the second game Zynga ever copied. I've been there, I know what it feels like. It sucks.
What I'm saying is that Zynga is aware of their past and is moving towards less copy and more creativity. I think their actually released products in the last 6 months are a testament to that. Dream Zoo is a great example of coming into a genre, "Zyngafying" it, and coming out with a hit product that's better than the competition. They even built new tech that they've open sourced and shared with the Cocos2d community. But no one talks about that because it's easier to hate Zynga than it is to make a reasoned discussion about them.
Thanks for posting this - I was having enough nostalgia for Sim Tower that I started looking around for this Tiny Tower. Unfortunately there's almost no information from the developer other than the iTunes download page, so I put it off.
Now I can properly procrastinate by figuring out how on earth to run Sim Tower on a 3-month-old Mac. Thanks again!
That's why I was really disappointed in Tiny Tower, really was hoping it was a new implementation of Sim Tower instead of a Farmville set in skyscrapers.
Maybe it is "wrong," maybe it isn't. But it still goes to prove that Zynga is still the shit-eating company we have always known it to be (no disrespect to most of the employees, who probably want to make fun, original games against the will of their superiors). Zynga has boatloads of cash, and yet it can't afford to innovate just a little bit? Pathetic.
>no disrespect to most of the employees, who probably want to make fun, original games against the will of their superiors
Then they should get out there and make original games. They're as much to blame as anyone. Sarah Lacy's article yesterday mentioned Zynga as one of the sexy places to work in SV. People want to work there, despite the shady practices.
We have this tendency to act like the little guy has no blame in things like this, whether it's war or the financial crisis or making bad social games. Like there's some line drawn between evil corporate and good little employees. Guess what? If the developers aren't going there and punching the clock every day, these games aren't getting made.
I'd agree with you if they were just similar, but the mechanics are the exact same- every aspect of it. There's a difference between "standing on the shoulders of giants" and flat out cloning something- with the first you take an idea, improve it, and make it your own.
You could similarly argue that Tiny Towers is virtually identical to Farmville, except with a different skin applied. All involve mindless clicking, items (shops/services instead of crops) with variable 'build' times. They have the worthless cash and 'premium' cash (in-app purchases). Tiny Towers has very little game mechanics innovation over Farmville (besides maybe that elevator).
Farmville in its current iteration is designed to involve your facebook freinds at every level.
Its reward schedule is blatantly designed to encourage social sharing - basically making players skinner boxes for other players.
Tiny tower on the other hand can be played in entirely single player fashion, without really being bothered by "Oh you need 3 paint flecks to paint window X! 5 windows, 2 chairs, 4 cuboards, 2 cashiers left to open store! Ask your friends for parts"
Farmville is far more diabolical than tiny tower. Its obvious the tiny tower guys are more into making a game, while farmville is just plain sinister.
Modern FPS games have detailed stories, considerable original acting and dialog (motion and voice capture), and incredibly detailed artwork. So your analogy doesn't really hold.
Perhaps I should have gone into more detail, but I disagree that the analogy doesn't hold. What tobtoh described is a genre- it may be a shitty one, but it's still simply a genre. There are different game mechanics, goals, art work and so on- it's just not super complex.
Ignoring the differences is like ignoring the acting, dialog and artwork in a first person shooter because they're all just grabbing weapons, running around, and hitting the shoot button.
I don't know. It's like saying that all those *ville are copies of Sim City. Maxis's games were centered on simulation, while this new generation of games are targeted to a much more casual gamer.
And it's bad when a Giant tries to crush a little studio, copying their games, while at the same time, suing others for doing the exact same thing. (Vostu)
No love for Zynga here; the bulk of my rent for the past reasonable stretch of time has been paid for by a Zynga competitor, and a lot of office time has been spent ripping on them for their various tactics. There are many things to hate Zynga for, especially if you've actually talked to people that work there (or that have jumped ship, or they've tried to recruit).
But I really don't buy the idea that gamblers are the target market. I know that demo very well, as my previous life was spent running numbers for an online gambling company (my experience with market analysis in that context got me most of my recent work), and I've always been a bit of a poker junkie myself. The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd.
Mistaking the motivations of this crowd is a serious mistake, and if you are under the assumption that the Facebook gaming crowd is made up of Pokerstars castoffs, for the sake of your business I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the situation. While there may be surface similarities in the addictive natures of these games, the people that spend money on gambling are almost always looking for real life gains; this stands in strong opposition to the typical motivation of a Facebook gamer, who is in it for the fantasy alone.
I'm not saying that Facebook would not make a great market for real life gamblers, but at the moment, it's not feasible because they don't allow actual gambling. And the real gamblers know the difference - they won't even play on fake money poker sites, for the most part, even the ones that are quite badly addicted to poker. I seriously doubt that they're the same people that sink money into Facebook games to buy virtual goods that let them decorate their farms or give their avatars new haircuts...
Poker is - in that sense - not gambling. The comparison as far as I understand it is between social games and slot machine. The link says that the democraphic is primarily female, so "The Facebook crowd is far more casual, far more female, and far less into tangible, liquid rewards than the gambling crowd." would fit. Slot machine users are also not into liquid rewards but are addicted for the entertainment.
WoW, Farmville, all use a skinnerian model - different reward types on variable, regular and random schedules designed to make sure that you get that next dopamine buzz just right in time.
leastI don't doubt that some of these games need someone to take a look into them. Likely we need legislation such as that which covers the gambling industry or rules such as those that cover the slot machine industry.
I know the regulation idea may not be popular here though (I dislike it). Yet we agree that the gambling industry needs checks and balances, in which case Zynga does too (or at the very least, someone to check)
Edit: For clarity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Also: If I am getting downvoted, I'd love to know why people disagree with me.
This seems like an impossible thing to regulate. What public good are you aiming to maximize? What has the market proven that it can't do without intervention? How will you determine which market behaviours are the "bad" ones?
In the case of gambling, I think the only protection the public needs is education ("the house always wins")--in the UK, at least, gambling regulation is usually in place to isolate gambling from other criminal activities e.g. money laundering, and to make sure the house isn't cheating, i.e. that it's a game of chance. Neither of those rationales seem to be necessary for skinner-box-like-games.
At one end, there is the market will solve it approach, and if it isn't broke, why fix it?
After reading your comment, the most I could suggest would be game companies having to show the general rate of growth players could be expected (average, maximal).
Well, the lumping together of WoW and Farmville is pretty bizarre and makes me think you have no idea what these games are actually like. Reminds me of Tipper Gore.
Then you go on to say "we agree the gambling industry needs checks and balances", which is pretty damned presumptuous. Have you completely failed to notice the strong libertarian bent of HN?
In many ways, I'm practically a socialist, but I cringe outwardly at the thought that government should regulate the behavior of consenting adults.
Yes, gambling can be seriously problematic for some people and their families/loved ones, and I'm not against government efforts to educate people and help treat problem gamblers, nor am I against things like requiring casinos to post odds, but go any further and you quickly get way outside my comfort zone.
Think of drugs and take a guess at how many people on HN actually support the "war on drugs". The number people who agree with special regulation of gambling is probably quite similar, and quite small.
Thanks for responding. I do realize that HN has a strong libertarian bent, still I assume that healthy debate is more important than ideology.
For the record: I am not advocating suffocation by regulation. I am asking where the line is drawn, and how people feel about the basic marriage between operant conditioning and micro transactions.
Responding to what you said about WoW and Farmville:
I did specify that I am talking about the REWARD systems employed by the games. Having played both, I know the differences between them as games. (suffered as a Shaman from nearly version 1)
Both though do use basic operant conditioning techniques. In WoW you have your XP bar which gives you your fixed ratio reinforcement, and then drops which provide your variable ratio reinforcement. Then you have your various other schedules which come from leveling up professions, progression, achievements and so on.
Farmville has similar mechanisms - your constant crop growth and timings are your regular reinforcement and then you have random drops which provide your variable reinforcement.
There really isn't any other science behind these systems when it comes to how the reward mechanisms are designed.
The games themselves are very different. Skill/ingenuity does play a huge role in WoW (like the rogue who soloed patchwork), I am in no way comparing the skill requirements of the two games. Farmville can be played by a bot.
>Well, the lumping together of WoW and Farmville is pretty bizarre and makes me think you have no idea what these games are actually like. Reminds me of Tipper Gore.
The reward schedules, which is what he's talking about, are exactly the same.
I find it truly bizarre just how many employees Zynga has, considering the number of products they produce. Mobile development has shown us time and time again that a game like Farmville can be easily made with 5 employees. There must be a gigantic bureaucratic they have to fight in order to get anything done with that gigantic mass of employees.
Focusing on number of employees is pretty pointless, since outsourcing randomly makes departments internal or external. Zynga has an accounting department and HR and janitors and receptionists, which 3-person companies just do not have. Heck, the guys who make Tiny Tower don't even have someone to do music since they licensed it.
I can see NimbleBits being miffed a bit, but they have not released an update in a very long time. I tweeted @eeen and he said there is no update anytime soon.
My wife cannot play Tiny Tower anymore, she has every floor possible (153), 12 vacant floors (waiting for more floor types to build), 30 million coins and 250 bux.
Is this what an "iPhone Game Of The Year" acts like?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. As long as Zynga is not directly using digital materials from Tiny Tower, I don't see the problem.
The game industry is a massive fest of copying each other. How many Doom clones are out there? Or the Pacman variety? Or the Breakouts? Space Invaders?
I can't bring myself to feel bad for Tiny Tower specifically. But if Zynga were to stomp on all small teams that released a popular game, it is easy to see how that would harm innovation.
I am in the process of saving private $$$ for a game project that I think will break even in the long run. If there was a good chance of being cloned before that happens, I wouldn't bother.
this is sad. zynga is sad. specifically, this habitual rip-offery. i won't call them shady, which i think is a popular opinion. not because i don't think they are, but just because i don't want to have to defend that position. i will however defend that it is sad.
I've been doing this 30 years and I've never seen a title that didn't have some connection or another to some hit title. Some have it stronger than others.
I always say, when asked sage game design advice, that a hit game is like the center point of a circle. The closer YOUR game is to the center the more likely it's a clone. If it's far OUTSIDE the circle that it's just to far from what people know to be a hit.
The goal is to hit the line of the circle, which makes the circle move to include your game and maybe make it the new center point.
replace Zynga with Epic and Tiny Tower and Dream Heights with Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament.
Video game companies copy each other. It's up to the consumer to decide which version is worth their money. I for one welcome some competition to Tiny Tower, especially after the game was ruined for me when I found out that setting the iPhone clock ahead allowed you to cheat the game..
>replace Zynga with Epic and Tiny Tower and Dream Heights with Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament.
Bad example. UT and Q3A were released withing 10 days of each other. The development time for an FPS such as Q3 doesn't leave much time for it to copy UT. On the other hand, Tiny Tower has been around for about half a year, plenty of time for Zynga to imitate as it pleases.
It seems to me that the reasoning in the Temple Island Collections case could apply to these situations (with respect to UK law), depending on how closely the second game copies the first, but IANAB.
Sim Tower is basically an elevator management simulator with some very basic tower management that's similar to something like Sim City. Tiny Tower is a very simple game about building floors putting people in the right floors. There's no comparison beyond the fact that they both take place in towers.
It is funny that some of the same people that claim that using and sharing other people work is ok and that copyrights and IP are evil also think that what Zynga did in this case is "stealing", "rip off" or immoral, at best.
Why would it be ok to just copy other people work and enjoy it, while creating something similar to something else is not ok?
game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. some of the best games out there are blatant copies of other games. still I feel for the team that made tiny tower.
Zynga is a bullshit company, they know it, we know it, but in the real world the people playing their games really don't give a shit as long as they can earn one banana per click. So they keep clicking, over and over. Welcome to the real world of internet marketing.
Except we have good reason to believe that Zynga has peaked. They haven't been able to replicate the success of Farmville, their active user base is shrinking, and customer acquisition is becoming prohibitively expensive.
All in all it certainly looks like the "glorified slot machine" formula of "social gaming" is dying, and that is immensely gratifying to me.
I want to make sure I'm reading your comment correctly: are you trying to say that people are too stupid to figure out they're being played, and that they'll run on the Zynga treadmill for as long as Zynga pleases?
I think data presents a reality less cynical than yours.
It sounds like he's saying that Zynga's business model will plateau, with 'the new suckers born every minute' replacing their fed-up customers that leave.
There's a sucker born every minute. For every existing user that realizes that clicking a button 800 times in a day is a waste of time, there's at least one new unsuspecting zombie adding a Zynga game to their Facebook account.
"They would sit and look at competitive products and write down all the features and make it obvious to us," the designer says. One contractor says he was offered freelance work from Zynga, related to mimicking a competitor's application, with explicit instructions: "Copy that game." http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/zynga_pincus_cop...
Pincus was heard yelling at employees, "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-09-08/news/farmvillains/
More examples: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-zynga-is-just-like-micros...