Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game(asherv.com)
asherv.com
Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game
http://asherv.com/threes/threemails
54 comments
technically speaking?
as a fellow dev with feet traditionally in both worlds (indie and startup), i can heartily say "meh" about both the rant and its the whole "ripoff" thing. you are absolutely correct about the indie guys being different from startup guys by wanting:
1) enough money to keep doing what they love.
2) recognition for what they do.
the threes guys? in the ios app store, their app was in the top 100 grossing list for a month and are still top 300. they've ranked #1 in downloads in 28 countries. and they're still crushing it on downloads.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/...
the 1024 guys? their downloads suck. their ratings are a full point worse. they're only lifting to the top 100 in countries that traditionally don't monetize worth beans anyway.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/...
yeah.
i choose data over ranty "you hurt my feelings" stuff every time. and, based on said hard, objective data, the threes guys are doing just fine.
*edit - i missed that last '0' on their top grossing stat. whoops.
as a fellow dev with feet traditionally in both worlds (indie and startup), i can heartily say "meh" about both the rant and its the whole "ripoff" thing. you are absolutely correct about the indie guys being different from startup guys by wanting:
1) enough money to keep doing what they love.
2) recognition for what they do.
the threes guys? in the ios app store, their app was in the top 100 grossing list for a month and are still top 300. they've ranked #1 in downloads in 28 countries. and they're still crushing it on downloads.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/779157948/rank-history/...
the 1024 guys? their downloads suck. their ratings are a full point worse. they're only lifting to the top 100 in countries that traditionally don't monetize worth beans anyway.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/823499224/rank-history/...
yeah.
i choose data over ranty "you hurt my feelings" stuff every time. and, based on said hard, objective data, the threes guys are doing just fine.
*edit - i missed that last '0' on their top grossing stat. whoops.
2048 is the #1 free app
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/...
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/840919914/rank-history/...
yup. making no money.
and, as the threes guys point out, with no longevity. it won't be at the top of the heap for long. then, unlike threes, it will crash out the bottom instead of hanging around.
so, again. meh.
and, as the threes guys point out, with no longevity. it won't be at the top of the heap for long. then, unlike threes, it will crash out the bottom instead of hanging around.
so, again. meh.
Only the web version is ad-free. The iOS version has ads. Its longevity I believe will be greater compared to the Threes game. What makes you think otherwise - that Threes will stay on the top for longer than 2048?
2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG. As per the words of a person who plays Solitaire every day: "I don't play it because it's challenging, I play it because I need to play with something that requires no thinking for a while".
Also, I don't have an iDevice or a desire to pay for a simple puzzle game, so I have no idea what this "Threes" thing is, other than "kind of like 2048 but you can't win". I've played a lot of 2048 and friends, though. I really like the hexagonal variant.
Also, I don't have an iDevice or a desire to pay for a simple puzzle game, so I have no idea what this "Threes" thing is, other than "kind of like 2048 but you can't win". I've played a lot of 2048 and friends, though. I really like the hexagonal variant.
> 2048 is Solitaire. It's exactly the same kind of game - the algorithm to beating it is dead simple and you win or lose by the whim of the RNG.
You're probably thinking of Klondike or Freecell. Neither of those require much thought and both (Klondike more than Freecell) are quite at the whim of the RNG.
But there are many Solitaires that are almost always winnable and require thinking and not rote algorithms. Try Spider Solitaire [1]. It's almost always winnable, but it will take you 20 to 30 minutes if you're good, and 40 minutes if you are not. I also quite like Sea Haven Towers [2]—it's like freecell, but the rules make it a little tougher. It requires some nice lateral thinking at times.
In those games the RNG only decides the difficulty of the game, not whether or not it's beatable (obviously occasionally it isn't, but it's very rare for both of those games).
[1] http://greenfelt.net/spider
[2] http://greenfelt.net/sht
You're probably thinking of Klondike or Freecell. Neither of those require much thought and both (Klondike more than Freecell) are quite at the whim of the RNG.
But there are many Solitaires that are almost always winnable and require thinking and not rote algorithms. Try Spider Solitaire [1]. It's almost always winnable, but it will take you 20 to 30 minutes if you're good, and 40 minutes if you are not. I also quite like Sea Haven Towers [2]—it's like freecell, but the rules make it a little tougher. It requires some nice lateral thinking at times.
In those games the RNG only decides the difficulty of the game, not whether or not it's beatable (obviously occasionally it isn't, but it's very rare for both of those games).
[1] http://greenfelt.net/spider
[2] http://greenfelt.net/sht
[deleted]
in a word? retention.
of the magical kpi beast, that's the single, most important metric. this is something i cut my teeth on hard as an mmo guy -- you wouldn't believe the amazing realtime monitoring of these numbers going on by homegrown services like soemon in the mmo space.
anyway, the growth-hacking startup crowd gets all riled up about install numbers where the game folks are only concerned about retention. because, if it retains? you can charge money for it. if it retains? it can go viral. if it retains? your ltv will lift. retention is key.
while 2048 is hot for the moment (it's got virality), it doesn't have any retention. i would bet that if you looked at their 7-day retention, it's terrible. everyone discovers the "corner strategy" or gets lucky and drops a big score or beats it. "oh, this isn't hard." it's the opposite of the flappy bird effect.
if you guys want to set a calendar reminder to go back and look at 2048's numbers on april 27th, you'll see it being a shadow of its former self.
building on what zemo said, craftsmanship gets your retention where lean gets you market fit and growth. personally, like i said, i'm a fan of both tactics and i believe they can happily coexist at a lifecycle perspective.
p.s. this is the same phenomenon where folks show their google analytics charts with one, giant spike on the day their post went viral. that's called growth without retention.
of the magical kpi beast, that's the single, most important metric. this is something i cut my teeth on hard as an mmo guy -- you wouldn't believe the amazing realtime monitoring of these numbers going on by homegrown services like soemon in the mmo space.
anyway, the growth-hacking startup crowd gets all riled up about install numbers where the game folks are only concerned about retention. because, if it retains? you can charge money for it. if it retains? it can go viral. if it retains? your ltv will lift. retention is key.
while 2048 is hot for the moment (it's got virality), it doesn't have any retention. i would bet that if you looked at their 7-day retention, it's terrible. everyone discovers the "corner strategy" or gets lucky and drops a big score or beats it. "oh, this isn't hard." it's the opposite of the flappy bird effect.
if you guys want to set a calendar reminder to go back and look at 2048's numbers on april 27th, you'll see it being a shadow of its former self.
building on what zemo said, craftsmanship gets your retention where lean gets you market fit and growth. personally, like i said, i'm a fan of both tactics and i believe they can happily coexist at a lifecycle perspective.
p.s. this is the same phenomenon where folks show their google analytics charts with one, giant spike on the day their post went viral. that's called growth without retention.
I believe the point is that 2048 has less gameplay longevity. Threes is designed to be a puzzle game that will last you the rest of your life, and no one has come close to beating it yet. 2048 can be beaten with relatively simple algorithms, so even though it is easier to pick up because its initial learning curve is shallower, people will max it out sooner.
Some of us don't want a puzzle game that will last the rest of our lives. I want something to get obsessed about for a few weeks, then move on to other things. I'd rather 2048 with its winnability (and beyond - I'm after its 8192 milestone now) than something nigh unto unwinnable.
BTW: I know there's ads on the 2048 iOS app, but don't see them. I'm barely aware of anything when playing.
BTW: I know there's ads on the 2048 iOS app, but don't see them. I'm barely aware of anything when playing.
Which is a shame for both developers, as retention matters more (financially) for an ad-supported game than a for-pay one.
Would it not be fair to say that because 1024 is free it's taking sales away from Threes?
They might be doing fine, maybe they deserve to do better.
craftsmanship is not lean.
Man, I really like this comment.
And I realize that sentence alone is pretty pointless, so I'll expand on it a little:
One of the huge sources of cognitive dissonance I have in HN and startups in general (and this is coming from someone who is explicitly not a startup/SV person, though I find it a great spectator sport and a wonderful font of knowledge) is the clash of lean against polish. I felt like I've spent the majority of my life indoctrinated to believe that polish above all else is valuable: to spend hour after hour poring over iteration after iteration, to settle with nothing except perfection. This manifests in a few ways: Pixar, for example, calls it something along the lines of 'dusting under the cabinets': making sure each aspect of each scene is absolutely pristine.
And then there's sort of the 'great is the enemy of good' / 'fail fast' / etc line of thinking: get something out the door, optimize for value over time, focus on efficacy. Which has seemingly become trendier than ever -- partly because it clearly works, and because of the undeniable numbers that people rarely buy goods and services because of, say, the fonts -- but an annoying little part of me cringes when I see a new service that doesn't even bother to customize the default Bootstrap theme.
Most times, Ii's hard for me to reconcile these two seemingly distinct philosophies because they seem at so odds with each other. I'm beginning to suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: that there's a time and a place for prioritizing growth and validation above everything, and that there's a time and a place for prioritizing perfection over everything.
Threes succeeded because of a relentless pursuit of quality -- and because of an addicting core concept that arose from that pursuit.
2048 succeeded because it of its price and accessibility, because it was easily hackable, and because it could spread like wildfire. (But then, it also succeeded because of Threes.)
And I realize that sentence alone is pretty pointless, so I'll expand on it a little:
One of the huge sources of cognitive dissonance I have in HN and startups in general (and this is coming from someone who is explicitly not a startup/SV person, though I find it a great spectator sport and a wonderful font of knowledge) is the clash of lean against polish. I felt like I've spent the majority of my life indoctrinated to believe that polish above all else is valuable: to spend hour after hour poring over iteration after iteration, to settle with nothing except perfection. This manifests in a few ways: Pixar, for example, calls it something along the lines of 'dusting under the cabinets': making sure each aspect of each scene is absolutely pristine.
And then there's sort of the 'great is the enemy of good' / 'fail fast' / etc line of thinking: get something out the door, optimize for value over time, focus on efficacy. Which has seemingly become trendier than ever -- partly because it clearly works, and because of the undeniable numbers that people rarely buy goods and services because of, say, the fonts -- but an annoying little part of me cringes when I see a new service that doesn't even bother to customize the default Bootstrap theme.
Most times, Ii's hard for me to reconcile these two seemingly distinct philosophies because they seem at so odds with each other. I'm beginning to suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle: that there's a time and a place for prioritizing growth and validation above everything, and that there's a time and a place for prioritizing perfection over everything.
Threes succeeded because of a relentless pursuit of quality -- and because of an addicting core concept that arose from that pursuit.
2048 succeeded because it of its price and accessibility, because it was easily hackable, and because it could spread like wildfire. (But then, it also succeeded because of Threes.)
I think "quality" is the key word here, that ineffable property of refinement and aesthetic care that creates beauty in our experience of something. We'd like to live in a world of quality things, but that isn't always where market forces take us, at least in the short term. The most cynical or economically motivated might even discount the importance of quality, but I think most people just want the market to be more aligned with it in the long term to enable more of what's around us to be a work of art.
This reminds me of the philosophical book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is all about "Quality" and the difference between "artisitic quality", and "technical/mechanical quality"
I've played both games. It's definitely true that 2048 appeared in a world where threes was popular. But it isn't the case that a bunch of effort improved threes over the simpler 2048.
Yes, it is simpler, easier. Sometimes that's exactly why a game is better. I can appreciate that the threes creators spent months working on their game, presentation, etc. To my taste, the result is poorer than 2048.
Another fun factor is that because it's so simple, and open source, 2048 has all these fun variations available. Those explore the game space in a way that a bunch of WIP snapshots from the threes creators just don't. The result is, I think, a more fun, engaging environment.
Yes, it is simpler, easier. Sometimes that's exactly why a game is better. I can appreciate that the threes creators spent months working on their game, presentation, etc. To my taste, the result is poorer than 2048.
Another fun factor is that because it's so simple, and open source, 2048 has all these fun variations available. Those explore the game space in a way that a bunch of WIP snapshots from the threes creators just don't. The result is, I think, a more fun, engaging environment.
You are missing the point - 2048 was a clone that is free riding on the work done to design Threes.
>It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide.
...except sometimes, the collision is a horrible trainwreck like the recent Occulus controversy, which suddenly makes a whole lot more sense in the context of your post.
...except sometimes, the collision is a horrible trainwreck like the recent Occulus controversy, which suddenly makes a whole lot more sense in the context of your post.
As someone who has done plenty of indie game development, I understand their gripes, but also I know this is the "Game" we're playing here — anyone who makes any form of success should expect to be cloned. Period. So think about that from the get-go and come to peace with it in your strategy/set expectations accordingly. The second I put any app out there I assume it's out in the general "mindspace" and will probably manifest somewhere in another form at some point or another. The speed at which it manifests usually correlates to the popularity of the idea.
> and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept.
For their very specific take on it, maybe. The concept of "slam blocks into each other to combine them into something new" is many years old. I first ran into it as an example of a game written in Haxe years and years ago.
For their very specific take on it, maybe. The concept of "slam blocks into each other to combine them into something new" is many years old. I first ran into it as an example of a game written in Haxe years and years ago.
I completely agree. To borrow a common refrain among my group of coworkers: presume goodwill. It's amazing to see the interactions of a group of very effective developers feeling out the finished product as they venture into interesting territory. I'm incredible happy that they posted this!
They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" - even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!
Are you referring to 2048?
They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free".
EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description.
"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free".
EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description.
"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927
He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either.
He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.
You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.
He was explicitly copying _something_, in a chain of direct borrowings that goes back to Threes. You seem to be taking issue with the pejorative implications of "rip off" that the original article is using to demarcate the difference between an exact clone and the near-but-different copies we're seeing now.
The innovation appears to have advanced enough that some of the 2048 variations are more akin "Doom clones" and "Roguelikes" than they are to "app store clones". But the 2048 apps that have flooded the app store and are mostly direct clones of the web 2048 versions. And they exist in a previously unnamed space between "clone" and "variation".
The innovation appears to have advanced enough that some of the 2048 variations are more akin "Doom clones" and "Roguelikes" than they are to "app store clones". But the 2048 apps that have flooded the app store and are mostly direct clones of the web 2048 versions. And they exist in a previously unnamed space between "clone" and "variation".
I think they're implying that the term ripoff is suitable regardless of whether he knew there was a link between 1024 and Threes.
The very comment you link to says 2048 was based on 1024. And 1024 was indisputably based on Threes.
How does that negate my point?
Your point seems to imply 2048 was not based on Threes. But it was in fact based on something that was based on Threes, which is equivalent.
Ah, I see. Well, my intention was to simply add evidence to the claim that the creator of the well known 2048 didn't know about Threes when he created it. There seemed to be a dispute, so I remembered the comment and linked to it.
The webpage for that 2048 references Threes, so even he is supporting a line of direct influence.
The webpage for that 2048 references Threes, so even he is supporting a line of direct influence.
the point is that you cannot download an iOS app without encountering its description, so to say that you know about 1024 and not Threes is deeply suspect.
That is incorrect.
Search for a game. The set of games is displayed with an install link and a screenshot. The description needs some scrolling.
(Edit: bizarrely heavy downvoting in this thread)
Search for a game. The set of games is displayed with an install link and a screenshot. The description needs some scrolling.
(Edit: bizarrely heavy downvoting in this thread)
Do you read iOS descriptions of apps you know you're going to download? I sure don't! If I see a friend playing a game that looks good, I download it without reading.
Cirulli explicitly says in that post that the chain of creation was Threes -> 1024 -> Saming's 2048 without animation -> Gabriel Cirulli's 2048.
Currently my most downvoted post, even though it is factually accurate and contains no opinion.
Still misleading. The 2048 creators may not have known of Threes, but were influenced by it nonetheless. An incomplete fact set imputing malice warrants downvoting.
What malice am I imputing?
One of the clones was amde without being aware of Threes!, other people are using the term "rip off", not me.
One of the clones was amde without being aware of Threes!, other people are using the term "rip off", not me.
> We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it.
I played Threes, and I liked it. And I feel for these guys having to watch everybody and his brother pile on to the idea they had to work so hard to tease out into reality.
But here is some hard truth: none of that matters.
Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. All they care about is what you have produced at the end of all that work. What makes it better or worse is how it stacks up relative to the competition -- even the competition that is shamelessly riffing off your core ideas -- not how much sweat you put into it.
And I gotta say, having played 2048, 1024 and Threes (the Android versions, at least), I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat. Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game to get your score and "sign" it (why do I care about signing it?) before you can play again; 1024 just moves you straight on to the next game. Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined, and 1024 understands that imperative better than Threes does.
I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how not to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners. It's because this essay sees the world entirely from the developers' perspective -- look how hard we worked! Look how long we labored! Look how subtle our decisions were! -- which is exactly the wrong angle.
You want your communications to speak from the customer's perspective, not from your own. Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price. So if you put your heart and soul into something, and then someone comes along, tweaks your thing and makes it better, the way to respond isn't to ask people to respect how hard you worked; it's to look closely at the new thing, understand why people like it better, and then bring that understanding to your next iteration or your next product.
I played Threes, and I liked it. And I feel for these guys having to watch everybody and his brother pile on to the idea they had to work so hard to tease out into reality.
But here is some hard truth: none of that matters.
Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product. All they care about is what you have produced at the end of all that work. What makes it better or worse is how it stacks up relative to the competition -- even the competition that is shamelessly riffing off your core ideas -- not how much sweat you put into it.
And I gotta say, having played 2048, 1024 and Threes (the Android versions, at least), I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat. Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game to get your score and "sign" it (why do I care about signing it?) before you can play again; 1024 just moves you straight on to the next game. Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined, and 1024 understands that imperative better than Threes does.
I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how not to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners. It's because this essay sees the world entirely from the developers' perspective -- look how hard we worked! Look how long we labored! Look how subtle our decisions were! -- which is exactly the wrong angle.
You want your communications to speak from the customer's perspective, not from your own. Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price. So if you put your heart and soul into something, and then someone comes along, tweaks your thing and makes it better, the way to respond isn't to ask people to respect how hard you worked; it's to look closely at the new thing, understand why people like it better, and then bring that understanding to your next iteration or your next product.
> Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game ... before you can play again
I actually took that de-emphasised retry loop of Threes to be a lovely touch of "humane" game design. A lot of us are probably familiar with an unconscious just-one-more insta-retry reflex, and while that does keep you in a game, there's a fair chance of the conclusion being quitting it on a bleary-eyed low note after your last-last-last-for-real attempt goes worse than your first.
Their little cooldown there struck me as very much designed rather than a lack of knowledge about how mobile games "should be". People making games of Threes quality level are no dummies when it comes to the details.
I actually took that de-emphasised retry loop of Threes to be a lovely touch of "humane" game design. A lot of us are probably familiar with an unconscious just-one-more insta-retry reflex, and while that does keep you in a game, there's a fair chance of the conclusion being quitting it on a bleary-eyed low note after your last-last-last-for-real attempt goes worse than your first.
Their little cooldown there struck me as very much designed rather than a lack of knowledge about how mobile games "should be". People making games of Threes quality level are no dummies when it comes to the details.
I despise UI that gets in my way. It's even worse if it's for my own good.
That extra swiping did get in my way, and I would say it was one of the only flaws in Threes.
Luckily, they added an option to turn it off in the 1.1 patch so you don't have to deal with it anymore.
Luckily, they added an option to turn it off in the 1.1 patch so you don't have to deal with it anymore.
> Nobody cares how hard you had to work to get from idea to product.
That was my initial reaction to that statement as well, but upon reading on I realized that's not the point they're trying to make. They're not saying "respect our efforts," they're saying "we spent a year on designing this to be challenging and replayable," and they go on to provide evidence for their claims of superiority.
That was my initial reaction to that statement as well, but upon reading on I realized that's not the point they're trying to make. They're not saying "respect our efforts," they're saying "we spent a year on designing this to be challenging and replayable," and they go on to provide evidence for their claims of superiority.
It's almost a shame they spent so much time talking about 2048; it takes away from the point I gleaned: to make something simple and "obvious" takes a ton of work. I've spent months on designs, and felt bad because the end design was so obvious. "Why didn't I think of that in the first place?"
Very true. It's easy to look at something someone else has done and say, "not a big deal." You don't see the sweat or the design process.
It's actually a big compliment, too. It signifies the design is conceptually sound and as small as it could be.
It's actually a big compliment, too. It signifies the design is conceptually sound and as small as it could be.
It may be very hard to make an idea's time come, but once it arrives it's almost trivial & unstoppable. The "four minute mile" (running) was considered impossible ... until someone did it (under adverse conditions to boot), then it almost immediately became the norm for serious runners. The tablet as we know it was pursued for decades with resounding failure ... until Jobs nailed it with the iPod Touch, then variants proliferated. Threes took months of nuanced polishing and nobody had anything like it ... until it was released, then 2048 et al was created & became unstoppable almost overnight.
Yeah it's more of an insight into the design process than any sort of 'plea'. It should also be noted that for their previous game, Puzzlejuice, they also released all the emails/prototypes/images that documented the process, so it's likely they would have done the same for Threes even if it hadn't been cloned many times over. The response to the clones and rip-offs is just a tacked on part at the beginning because they feel strongly about it.
If the game were very superior to the clones, they wouldn't have to explain why. Games are like jokes, in that way.
This isn't really true. There are tons of games out there that capture the imagination better than other clones, but have shallower gameplay. The initial 'demo' period might be fun, but it doesn't mean the game will last.
The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.
The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.
> The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.
This is the critical point missed by calling 2048 a clone. Of course it's a clone, and that's what makes it so interesting.
2048, in isolation, isn't that much fun; it captured interest for a while, but what made it gain popularity was being so simple that it lent itself to a hundred variations. Every one of those is, in some ways, more a "clone" of 2048 than 2048 is of Threes, but the meta-game has become fun in ways the game itself isn't. Just look at things like Flappy 2048, or Numberwang 2048.
This is the critical point missed by calling 2048 a clone. Of course it's a clone, and that's what makes it so interesting.
2048, in isolation, isn't that much fun; it captured interest for a while, but what made it gain popularity was being so simple that it lent itself to a hundred variations. Every one of those is, in some ways, more a "clone" of 2048 than 2048 is of Threes, but the meta-game has become fun in ways the game itself isn't. Just look at things like Flappy 2048, or Numberwang 2048.
Oh, I agree completely. Your last paragraph is exactly why this letter from the people who made Threes sound so particularly whiney. They have forgotten that they don't get to tell people how to enjoy themselves. Any parent who has watched their kids play with the cardboard box more than the toys that came in it will tell you that.
I don't think we can know why 2048 became so popular and Threes fell in its own shadow. Maybe it's a sign that open source and free as in freedom have finally registered with the general consumer on an emotional level, though I doubt it. If we knew for sure then we could make such better toys that the kids ignore the box.
I don't think we can know why 2048 became so popular and Threes fell in its own shadow. Maybe it's a sign that open source and free as in freedom have finally registered with the general consumer on an emotional level, though I doubt it. If we knew for sure then we could make such better toys that the kids ignore the box.
I don't think the open-source aspect of it was the important difference. Rather, I think the thing that let 2048 become so huge, compared to Threes, is that you can show someone a link to 2048, and the moment they follow the link, they're playing it.
I think this is an important reason not to dismiss the Web as a platform.
I think this is an important reason not to dismiss the Web as a platform.
This is complete rubbish. 2048 succeeded because it was a blatant 2nd generation copy of the threes gameplay and concept (albeit a poor long term game). It would not have attracted any attention had threes not been so hot. Its principal advantage over threes was being free.
Bullshit. Otherwise 1024 would've taken off. Not 2048.
See how easy it is to shoot down someone's opinion and state your own?
See how easy it is to shoot down someone's opinion and state your own?
[deleted]
The trouble is that the essay takes a while getting to that point - up until then it sounds like it might be a little bitter. I was about to skip to the end myself when I ran across the 'change of tone'.
I wonder if the post would have been better if the note about the clones was a postscript instead of a preamble.
Then again, it might have seemed even more bitter if it came after all the discussion of their work.
Then again, it might have seemed even more bitter if it came after all the discussion of their work.
Agreed
This is an essay from a craftsman to other craftsmen. Your position is not one of a craftsman, it is one of a salesman.
And the consumer doesn't care at all what anyone is.
All they want is a good game, and for many of them that game is 2048...
All they want is a good game, and for many of them that game is 2048...
The point of the article is to say that it is sad that people do not care about craftsmanship. To proclaim that people do not care about craftsmanship is only stating the obvious.
2048 was a good game for the first two playthroughs. Then I realized the trick mentioned in this blog and it was dead.
Threes remains interesting. It is a better game.
Threes remains interesting. It is a better game.
And the most important things in the world are consumers?
Yes? Unless you are making something for your own satisfaction of having made it, the responses of the people consuming your product are the most important thing.
[deleted]
I disagree with you, but I'm curious about this bit:
> I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat.
I've never played 1024. Could you explain how it "sands [the ideas] down" and and "is easier to grasp"? I found Threes simple to grasp, and it sounded to me from reading the essay that 1024 actually had more features. I would expect that would make it slower to learn.
> Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined
This is certainly true. I've found Threes did a pretty good job of this. My only complaint was the 'signing' process at the end which was fixed with the first patch.
> I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how not to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners.
I didn't see this post as a "here's why clones suck" thing. I took it as a "here's what it was like for us to make our game". Only the prelude mentions the clones, the rest is just a development log. I'm glad they included that preamble, because I've been curious about their thoughts.
Basically, I didn't see this as a message to customers but a 'here's what game development can be like' post.
> Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price.
Ah, but how they measure "best" matters. I adore Three's presentation and I think the polish they put on it was well worth it. I see it as a sign of the amount of work they put into the whole product. I was happy to plunk down $3.
On the other hand 1024 and 2048 look like prototypes to me. Drawing a few colors of boxes and making them move around the screen isn't hard. If 2048 was the only game to exist, they would have a higher barrier to get me to pay $3 as from screenshots (all you get in the app store) it doesn't look like it's worth it.
As a general note, it was clear a lot of thought and time went into Threes, but I'm amazed they had so many different visual designs and concepts along the way. There are at least 2-3x as many as I would have guessed.
I also kind of liked the argyle idea. That was rather neat.
> I think of the three of them 1024 stands up the best. It takes the core ideas in Threes and sands them down into a game that is easier to grasp and plays faster, without becoming so simple (a la 2048) that it becomes a game a script can beat.
I've never played 1024. Could you explain how it "sands [the ideas] down" and and "is easier to grasp"? I found Threes simple to grasp, and it sounded to me from reading the essay that 1024 actually had more features. I would expect that would make it slower to learn.
> Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined
This is certainly true. I've found Threes did a pretty good job of this. My only complaint was the 'signing' process at the end which was fixed with the first patch.
> I say all this to help others understand why I would point to this essay as an example of how not to respond to a problem like a barrage of cloners.
I didn't see this post as a "here's why clones suck" thing. I took it as a "here's what it was like for us to make our game". Only the prelude mentions the clones, the rest is just a development log. I'm glad they included that preamble, because I've been curious about their thoughts.
Basically, I didn't see this as a message to customers but a 'here's what game development can be like' post.
> Customers don't give you brownie points for how hard you worked on something. All they care about is how to get the best product for the best price.
Ah, but how they measure "best" matters. I adore Three's presentation and I think the polish they put on it was well worth it. I see it as a sign of the amount of work they put into the whole product. I was happy to plunk down $3.
On the other hand 1024 and 2048 look like prototypes to me. Drawing a few colors of boxes and making them move around the screen isn't hard. If 2048 was the only game to exist, they would have a higher barrier to get me to pay $3 as from screenshots (all you get in the app store) it doesn't look like it's worth it.
As a general note, it was clear a lot of thought and time went into Threes, but I'm amazed they had so many different visual designs and concepts along the way. There are at least 2-3x as many as I would have guessed.
I also kind of liked the argyle idea. That was rather neat.
Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move. That threes doesn't do this makes it look like the prototype, no matter how much thought went into it.
Threes then seems more like a combination of this concept and a 15 puzzle.
Threes then seems more like a combination of this concept and a 15 puzzle.
> Specifically, once you've played puzzles of this sort, it is easy to see that the core of the puzzle is that all the tiles move as far as possible on a move
I see. That's now how I play so I wouldn't have thought of that.
I see. That's now how I play so I wouldn't have thought of that.
> Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game to get your score and "sign" it (why do I care about signing it?) before you can play again
At least on iOS, you can choose "Autosign Scores" in the Options.
At least on iOS, you can choose "Autosign Scores" in the Options.
That didn't come about until the first patch though. It was a rather large annoyance during the early stages of my 'addiction'.
> it's to look closely at the new thing, understand why people like it better, and then bring that understanding to your next iteration or your next product.
I agree with this, and the "copy, then improve" mindset, along with the customer-centric view, has some great similarities to the "shanzhai" culture in China:
http://designmind.frogdesign.com/articles/shanzhai-s-role-in...
http://p2pfoundation.net/Shanzhai
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
On the Internet, I see this same remix philosophy manifest itself very strongly in the creation and propagation of memes.
I agree with this, and the "copy, then improve" mindset, along with the customer-centric view, has some great similarities to the "shanzhai" culture in China:
http://designmind.frogdesign.com/articles/shanzhai-s-role-in...
http://p2pfoundation.net/Shanzhai
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
On the Internet, I see this same remix philosophy manifest itself very strongly in the creation and propagation of memes.
I was going to make an extremely similar posting and I agree with you on every point.
I think the largest takeaways on the crazy, viral successes of simple games like 2048 and Flappy Bird is that if the game is designed for the player to lose (at least most of the time) then playing again should be dead simple. If your game is really that addicting, anything between the end of one game and the start of another is an obstacle.
I think the largest takeaways on the crazy, viral successes of simple games like 2048 and Flappy Bird is that if the game is designed for the player to lose (at least most of the time) then playing again should be dead simple. If your game is really that addicting, anything between the end of one game and the start of another is an obstacle.
The big differences between Threes and the followers are nearly invisible at first by get more apparent as you get deeper into the system.
So, while they could probably make the game restarting interface more streamlined, the part where you're playing the game is something subtly deeper that unfortunately doesn't become apparent until you've put some time into it.
So, while they could probably make the game restarting interface more streamlined, the part where you're playing the game is something subtly deeper that unfortunately doesn't become apparent until you've put some time into it.
Great way of putting it.
IMO, the original developer's mistake was the "build it and they will come" strategy.
Even if you built the perfect game, the "cloners" hussled more to get people to play their game, and got traction faster.
Just because you build the perfect product, does not mean that people will use it.
We call it "marketing" and "luck"
IMO, the original developer's mistake was the "build it and they will come" strategy.
Even if you built the perfect game, the "cloners" hussled more to get people to play their game, and got traction faster.
Just because you build the perfect product, does not mean that people will use it.
We call it "marketing" and "luck"
> Threes makes you swipe-swipe-swipe after every game to get your score and "sign" it (why do I care about signing it?) before you can play again; 1024 just moves you straight on to the next game. Mobile games need to be simple and streamlined, and 1024 understands that imperative better than Threes does.
This is such facile commentary on the metagame. Any armchair designer can come along and recite a checklist of attributes that any "well-designed" game must satisfy.
But the fact is that gameplay is much more important than metagame and the gameplay of Threes is much better considered. It's a deep game yes, and maybe that's not for everybody, but it doesn't fail as a mobile game. I play it on the tube all the time, and it works fine just to put it away and come back to it.
This is such facile commentary on the metagame. Any armchair designer can come along and recite a checklist of attributes that any "well-designed" game must satisfy.
But the fact is that gameplay is much more important than metagame and the gameplay of Threes is much better considered. It's a deep game yes, and maybe that's not for everybody, but it doesn't fail as a mobile game. I play it on the tube all the time, and it works fine just to put it away and come back to it.
>So if you put your heart and soul into something, and then someone comes along, tweaks your thing and makes it better, the way to respond isn't to ask people to respect how hard you worked; it's to look closely at the new thing, understand why people like it better, and then bring that understanding to your next iteration or your next product.
It doesn't have be better or even different for a clone to be successful.
Someone copies it exactly and starts making money off it. Or more likely, 100 different people. What's your response to that supposed to be then?
It doesn't have be better or even different for a clone to be successful.
Someone copies it exactly and starts making money off it. Or more likely, 100 different people. What's your response to that supposed to be then?
Right. So we're on hackernews celebrating ripoffs and clones.
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Civilization has always advanced itself in this way.
Most products are little different from other products. New products are soon copied if they are "ideas whose time has come".
The point is that the work they did led to the clones. Even if the clones are incrementally better they are free riding.
If investments in innovation and design result in returns only for cloners, they will not be made, and we will all suffer.
It is simply false to say 'all they care about is how to get the best product for the best price'. They also care about cool new stuff. Unfortunately, they don't connect the two.
If investments in innovation and design result in returns only for cloners, they will not be made, and we will all suffer.
It is simply false to say 'all they care about is how to get the best product for the best price'. They also care about cool new stuff. Unfortunately, they don't connect the two.
I have a friend who works at a successful mobile gaming company (not Zynga). He freely admits that what they do is rip off whatever games are most popular. Period. End of Story.
They even have a SWAT team that will go out and build prototypes in days and launch them on the App store as quickly as possible to get some users. They've even launched games with the exact same name as the popular game in hopes of tricking people into using their version of the game.
The entire thing is despicable to me, but I guess that's just the nature of the gaming industry these days. Most companies are ripping off each other, so true innovation is hard to come by, and isn't really appreciated anymore.
The funny thing is that he also admitted that they have run out of successful games to rip off, so they might actually have to build their own games.
They even have a SWAT team that will go out and build prototypes in days and launch them on the App store as quickly as possible to get some users. They've even launched games with the exact same name as the popular game in hopes of tricking people into using their version of the game.
The entire thing is despicable to me, but I guess that's just the nature of the gaming industry these days. Most companies are ripping off each other, so true innovation is hard to come by, and isn't really appreciated anymore.
The funny thing is that he also admitted that they have run out of successful games to rip off, so they might actually have to build their own games.
I dont think mobile games are entirely indicative of what the gaming industry is. The rampant cloning and wild west nature is kind of a characteristic unique to mobile. Cloning and stuff still happens in other gaming mediums, but it has never seemed to be as bad as it is on mobile.
Rampant cloning and 'wild west' exactly describes home computer game development in the eighties. I don't think it's unique to mobile, or a modern phenomena.
Whether or not it's the company your friend is at, King games do the same thing (the Candy Crush stuff). All of the games of theirs I've seen are tweaks of puzzler games that are 20 years old. Throw on lots of shiny graphics and transitions, tweak the edges of the gameplay, and viola! New market killer.
No offense, but it seems to me that researching and subsequently ripping off 20 year-old games is somewhat different than ripping off days-old games already designed for the same interface.
I was actually rather surprised that it took almost 3 weeks for Threes clones to start showing up. It's not like the app came out of nowhere, it was discussed on Mac and iOS game blogs before release and was featured in the App store almost instantly.
Threes is the original game that 2048 (and its clones) are based on. This site starts off a bit slow (talking about 2048), however the hundreds of emails / screenshots showing the progress is insanely awesome. It's a great look into what it's like to build something from scratch.
Spoiler alert: at one point it was a game about argyle socks and monsters (Argoyle).
Spoiler alert: at one point it was a game about argyle socks and monsters (Argoyle).
Having seen their games ripped off and cloned dozens of times within a few weeks, the developers of popular iOS/Android game Threes could be responding with lawsuits and anger.
Instead, they are expressing grief (having been accused of cloning the... clones), understanding of how ideas evolve and an awesome release of 45,000 words of internal discussions, sketches, prototype designs of their work of 14 months to get to release.
If you're interested in game design, this is pure gold.
Instead, they are expressing grief (having been accused of cloning the... clones), understanding of how ideas evolve and an awesome release of 45,000 words of internal discussions, sketches, prototype designs of their work of 14 months to get to release.
If you're interested in game design, this is pure gold.
Putting aside my feelings on the morality of it all, this really is a fascinating look into the design process that goes into these games and software in general. These posts also show the human side of the design process; how the team responds when one member leaves or returns, what happens to the product, etc. In my short time working on software (and especially UI) with others, I've had many of these same conversations and issues come up.
This is a great read.
As someone who pooped out a low quality clone of Threes for the purpose of teaching myself d3 ( http://www.kongregate.com/games/honkskillet/menage-a-threes ), I can say that there is a mile of difference between the polish of Threes vs 2048.
Also, I agree with the 3's creator when he says that 2048 is essentially broken. I had played 3s before playing 2048. I got 1024 on my first play through, and the middle part of the game was so tedious I resorted to the alternating up, left strategy just so I could advance the game. It's a little weird that a clone of a clone got so much attention.
As someone who pooped out a low quality clone of Threes for the purpose of teaching myself d3 ( http://www.kongregate.com/games/honkskillet/menage-a-threes ), I can say that there is a mile of difference between the polish of Threes vs 2048.
Also, I agree with the 3's creator when he says that 2048 is essentially broken. I had played 3s before playing 2048. I got 1024 on my first play through, and the middle part of the game was so tedious I resorted to the alternating up, left strategy just so I could advance the game. It's a little weird that a clone of a clone got so much attention.
I think the tipping point was that 2048 was open-source, on github, and had some low-hanging fruit in terms of improvements or variations. Once the simple changes had been exhausted, the momentum was there to sustain attention for more elaborate but mostly still incremental changes. If everyone had to code it from scratch, we would have seen far fewer versions.
I think it's an interesting study in the possibility space of a design, a breadth-first search by the masses vs. the depth-first search by the Threes developers.
I think it's an interesting study in the possibility space of a design, a breadth-first search by the masses vs. the depth-first search by the Threes developers.
I built a decently polished open-source clone of 2048 for iOS over a weekend, and from HN's front page it's obvious many could (and did) do the same for a variety of platforms and languages. It's popular to talk about how ideas are cheap and plentiful, and implementation is what really matters. But maybe Threes is an example where the opposite is true: implementation is straightforward, but the ideas, thought, and polish that goes into making the product truly spectacular are the distinguishing factor.
They are in a tight spot.
This is one of the most simple, elegant and original game ideas of recent times. One of those that make you wonder how has no one managed to stumble on it before. It is inevitable it got copied.
The reason why it got copied and why 1024/2048 got really popular is that they have overdone the original. The interface is just too funky, there's fluff, fluff and decoration. Rubbery UI makes you feel like you are fighting with the app every time you use it. There are also those smileys on tiles too. So what you have is an idea that looks more complicated than needed (with 1s and 2s being special) and the execution that looks cluttered. That's just asking for a simpler clone - exactly what they got in 1024 and 2048.
Now they have an unenviable task of trying to convince players that added complexity in their version is by design. That or try and slim down the game for faster pace (and perhaps add "basic" mode that mimics clones' simpler mechanics).
This is one of the most simple, elegant and original game ideas of recent times. One of those that make you wonder how has no one managed to stumble on it before. It is inevitable it got copied.
The reason why it got copied and why 1024/2048 got really popular is that they have overdone the original. The interface is just too funky, there's fluff, fluff and decoration. Rubbery UI makes you feel like you are fighting with the app every time you use it. There are also those smileys on tiles too. So what you have is an idea that looks more complicated than needed (with 1s and 2s being special) and the execution that looks cluttered. That's just asking for a simpler clone - exactly what they got in 1024 and 2048.
Now they have an unenviable task of trying to convince players that added complexity in their version is by design. That or try and slim down the game for faster pace (and perhaps add "basic" mode that mimics clones' simpler mechanics).
Threes is a significantly deeper game than 2048 - see for instance this thread on reverse engineering the gameplay mechanics: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=3133680&postcou...
This is something the developers are known for. Greg's earlier game, Ridiculous Fishing, not only had it's own internal Twitter app ("Byrdr") with it's own ARG mini-game - including a fake website with SQL injection vulnerabilities and a voicemail hacking sidequest.
This is something the developers are known for. Greg's earlier game, Ridiculous Fishing, not only had it's own internal Twitter app ("Byrdr") with it's own ARG mini-game - including a fake website with SQL injection vulnerabilities and a voicemail hacking sidequest.
Ridiculous fishing is a piece of video game art. It's really blows all of it's clones out of the water (pardon the pun). You can't clone talent and polish.
I love Threes, and I understand where they're coming from.
But this line "Others rifled off that they thought 2048 was a better game than Threes. That all stung pretty bad. We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it. "
The fact that someone spent less time on a game, and based it on your game, does not make it a WORSE game. It's just unfortunate for you.
But this line "Others rifled off that they thought 2048 was a better game than Threes. That all stung pretty bad. We know Threes is a better game, we spent over a year on it. "
The fact that someone spent less time on a game, and based it on your game, does not make it a WORSE game. It's just unfortunate for you.
Though they explain why Threes is better in the next line. 2048 is "broken" and easy to beat whereas Threes is a deeper, more challenging game. I think they were trying to get across that they know that Threes is a better game because they spent over a year working out the design and ensuring that they didn't make a "broken" game like 2048.
But this exposes an underlying assumption in their thinking, which is that a deeper game is automatically a better game. I would argue that this assumption is mistaken, especially on mobile, where people tend to gravitate towards games they can play in short bursts during downtime. In that context "deeper" just means "harder to pick up and get into."
That's an arguable point, of course, but I just mean that it's not as axiomatic as they make it sound that Threes is better just because it's deeper.
That's an arguable point, of course, but I just mean that it's not as axiomatic as they make it sound that Threes is better just because it's deeper.
They mention that. "But why is Threes better? It’s better for us, for our goals." and then later: "that’s what’s better to us as game designers. We worked really hard to create a simple game system with interesting complexity that you can play forever."
What a good look into the process of game design. Tons of communication with team members, lots of pictures and scribbles to explain ideas, and the ever-growing list of tasks that take a prototype to a shipped game. It's amazing to think about the scope and scale of games that AAA studios can deliver at given that all of this has to happen between scores of developers.
I felt the same sentiment when 2048 first landed. I was shocked at how no one had really heard of Threes!
Then the developer put "Gameplay similar to Threes" or something like that on the page. I thought it was a nice gesture.
But, overall, I felt for the Threes developers. I'm glad to see this posted to HN.
Then the developer put "Gameplay similar to Threes" or something like that on the page. I thought it was a nice gesture.
But, overall, I felt for the Threes developers. I'm glad to see this posted to HN.
I had heard of Threes! but only I was only vaguely aware of it as "a good game".
1024 and 2048 and the others caused me to buy Threes! so the clones get them at least one sale.
1024 and 2048 and the others caused me to buy Threes! so the clones get them at least one sale.
Same here. Although the games do operate on similar concepts, the differences are enough to make the gameplay quite distinct. Threes is undoubtably the better game. And getting hooked on 2048 made me buy Threes. The people who are amenable to buying paid apps won't be deterred by having a free, inferior, alternative and if the knowledge is out there, it could actually increase sales.
All that Threes should really ask is that if you make a derivative you put a link somewhere in the description pointing back to the parent, like "Inspiration derived from 1024 / Threes".
I have been playing Threes for quite some time, so it came as a surprise to me when several commenters on HN assumed that 2048 was the original and Threes was the derivative.
I just looked at 1024 on Google Play, and I have to say it would really sting to work on Threes for a year then read that "If you played 2048 in Hacker News, That [sic] you should know this is the original one."
Have you seen the original description for 1024 on the app store? I see they've updated it to be less tasteless, but luckily the internet never forgets:
"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."
Their comment that no one has yet to "beat" threes is in my opinion part of the problem. I get a kick out of beating something, having reached some goal (often in competition with someone else). So maybe 2048 is broken. Doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.
Also knowing other people had "beaten" 2048 initially helped to made it more addictive.
Also knowing other people had "beaten" 2048 initially helped to made it more addictive.
I don't see Threes as a game that has to be beaten. I'm picturing the more classic arcade games like Donkey Kong or Tetris where you want to one up your friends by getting a higher score, and getting addicted until you get that high score
What the wha?
Give me a break, this same diatribe could be spouted by anybody who has built anything of significance. Yes, if you build something great, people will copy it, just as your precious snowflake was inspired by others as well. This isn't anything unique to gaming, it isn't anything unique to 3s, it is an immovable fact of life.
Are people copying the product we've poured the last 18 months into? Damn right they are, and if we don't do a better job of executing then we will rightfully get buried.
The gaming industry in general is incredibly derivative, it is the modus operandi. I ran a gaming studio for a while and you bet we did our share of "being inspired" as well as our share of "inspiring others". It is just a fact of life.
I think the thing that gets my goat here is the waxing on that 2048 is a worse game because it is easier and all the people who played that just don't "get" the careful 14 months of planning that went into 3s.
Let's get something straight here, 3s is a great mobile game, but it is just that, a mobile game for playing at bus stops. And the one and only measure of success there is how much fun people have playing it.
Flappy Bird is stupid, but it is also entertaining for no real reason. Chess on the other hand, is rather smart, and also entertaining. Both have their place. And yes, we can cry about how society is going down the drain and only appreciates dumbed down games, but 3s is pretty simple so let's not throw stones shall we?
Phew, ok, who needs a coffee?
Give me a break, this same diatribe could be spouted by anybody who has built anything of significance. Yes, if you build something great, people will copy it, just as your precious snowflake was inspired by others as well. This isn't anything unique to gaming, it isn't anything unique to 3s, it is an immovable fact of life.
Are people copying the product we've poured the last 18 months into? Damn right they are, and if we don't do a better job of executing then we will rightfully get buried.
The gaming industry in general is incredibly derivative, it is the modus operandi. I ran a gaming studio for a while and you bet we did our share of "being inspired" as well as our share of "inspiring others". It is just a fact of life.
I think the thing that gets my goat here is the waxing on that 2048 is a worse game because it is easier and all the people who played that just don't "get" the careful 14 months of planning that went into 3s.
Let's get something straight here, 3s is a great mobile game, but it is just that, a mobile game for playing at bus stops. And the one and only measure of success there is how much fun people have playing it.
Flappy Bird is stupid, but it is also entertaining for no real reason. Chess on the other hand, is rather smart, and also entertaining. Both have their place. And yes, we can cry about how society is going down the drain and only appreciates dumbed down games, but 3s is pretty simple so let's not throw stones shall we?
Phew, ok, who needs a coffee?
Not sure if you've ever played it- it sounds like you maybe have not- but Flappy Bird is punishingly difficult, a fact which is commonly cited as part of its appeal.
No, I have played it far too much, high score of 111.
My point was just that the dynamic is simple, stupidly simple, but that doesn't make it unfun.
My point was just that the dynamic is simple, stupidly simple, but that doesn't make it unfun.
PopCap have a good approach to cloning. It's basically, we love seeing clones because we enjoy seeing good games made, it increases the market size and the bad ones will sink anyway. They're confident in their ability to make really game games that will sell. They're sitting on one of the most cloned games of all time, but still manage to make good games and make money.
People seem to get stuck on the idea that a good game is good because of it's mechanic. Therefore if someone uses your mechanic, you're stuffed. A mechanic is only part of what makes a game really good. It's a similar mistake to having a feature focus in a product company.
It has been fun to see all the riffing off the Threes concept over the past couple of weeks. And I'm sure Asher Vollmer and team will benefit from it all. There is more interest in all the games, they'll have extra ideas from the clones that come out, they find out for free some ideas that don't work. It will help them raise the bar on Threes and make it a better, more successful game.
People seem to get stuck on the idea that a good game is good because of it's mechanic. Therefore if someone uses your mechanic, you're stuffed. A mechanic is only part of what makes a game really good. It's a similar mistake to having a feature focus in a product company.
It has been fun to see all the riffing off the Threes concept over the past couple of weeks. And I'm sure Asher Vollmer and team will benefit from it all. There is more interest in all the games, they'll have extra ideas from the clones that come out, they find out for free some ideas that don't work. It will help them raise the bar on Threes and make it a better, more successful game.
> We wanted players to be able to play Threes over many months, if not years. We both beat 2048 on our first tries.
I was addicted to Threes when I first got it. I played dozens of games per session, and multiple sessions per day. So it was definitely addictive. But, as it turned out, I only played Threes for about as many days. The flame that burns brightest burns out the soonest, I suppose.
I was addicted to Threes when I first got it. I played dozens of games per session, and multiple sessions per day. So it was definitely addictive. But, as it turned out, I only played Threes for about as many days. The flame that burns brightest burns out the soonest, I suppose.
I play Threes less often now too, but when I want to play something (eg waiting at the bus stop), I crack open Threes.
It's a super well polished game that you can play with 1 hand.
It's a super well polished game that you can play with 1 hand.
My play has gone down too, but for me it's because I seem to have hit a plateau. I managed to get a 768 once a few weeks ago, but haven't been close. Most of my recent scores have been 8-9k when my highscore is over 20k. It's kind of discouraging that I can't get near my score again.
Lots of discussion already but I wanted to throw "patents" out there as that's what it made me think of first. You can patent game mechanics to protect them (to a certain extent). Is it possible to be against patents (as many geeks seem to be) while also being against people ripping off game mechanics? If so, how?
I came in here post this point. I recognize HN isn't a single human, but the popular positions are somewhat incoherent.
It is exactly this that the patent system is designed to solve. You spend all your hard work, time, and money developing something, and somebody swoops in and appropriates it. If you don't want to be able to protect ideas, this sort of thing is going to happen. It's a tradeoff.
It is exactly this that the patent system is designed to solve. You spend all your hard work, time, and money developing something, and somebody swoops in and appropriates it. If you don't want to be able to protect ideas, this sort of thing is going to happen. It's a tradeoff.
I think it's worth noting the timing of this post, which is that it came out a day after this article on the LA Times tech blog: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-2048-hit...
The article, without even so much as mentioning Threes, credited Cirulli with designing 2048 over a weekend, which rather blatantly missed the point that it was only possible to put together 2048 in a weekend in a world where Threes and then 1024 already existed. The article has since been corrected/updated, but I saw Asher tweet about it, and I imagine that their choice to put together this essay is meant to provide a comprehensive counterpoint to that school of thought.
The article, without even so much as mentioning Threes, credited Cirulli with designing 2048 over a weekend, which rather blatantly missed the point that it was only possible to put together 2048 in a weekend in a world where Threes and then 1024 already existed. The article has since been corrected/updated, but I saw Asher tweet about it, and I imagine that their choice to put together this essay is meant to provide a comprehensive counterpoint to that school of thought.
My instinct is to side with the Threes devs on this, but someone has to say it: It sounds like they spent a year on the cute little faces. Original Tetris didn't do that. Also, I'm pretty sure Tetris was cloned immediately, at least privately, by pretty much any programmer with spare time who played it (because it's fun and easy to implement, like the Threes mechanic).
Is it a good thing that Threes is so hard it's like pushing a rock uphill, until you inevitably can't keep it up and it comes crashing down on you? If someone invented the 15 Puzzle today (the one where you slide the tiles around in a 4x4 grid), for example, but dressed it up and tweaked it so you couldn't beat it, people would probably start having fun with the possible version on the side.
Is it a good thing that Threes is so hard it's like pushing a rock uphill, until you inevitably can't keep it up and it comes crashing down on you? If someone invented the 15 Puzzle today (the one where you slide the tiles around in a 4x4 grid), for example, but dressed it up and tweaked it so you couldn't beat it, people would probably start having fun with the possible version on the side.
I loved threes, Played it for close to 20-30 hours during winter break. As soon as 2048 came out, I managed to get to 2048 on my second try based on my experience with threes. I play 2048 in my browser whenever I have a spare 5 minutes, and when I'm on the Bus, I still frequently hop into a quick game of Threes.
The mechanics of the two games are very similar, and obviously 2048 is a direct descendent of threes - but I wouldn't go so far to say that one is better than the other.
Threes has claim to originality, and first publication, so significant credit does need to go to Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and composer Jimmy Hinson of Sirvo for their original invention.
But, Threes does have some "issue" - one is really poor startup times. It's slow enough that I am more likely to play 2048 in my browser, than bother firing up Threes on my iPhone. The piece assignment in threes, is also somewhat less pleasing to my experience than in 2048, for whatever reason.
Also - sometimes you are looking for nice quick fun - I get a nice rush of (finger mashing) 2048 to the 512 stage, and then very, very quickly racing to 2048 instinctively (plus the crush of defeat if I make a flickering mistake and get my pieces out of place).
Threes requires a lot more attention - I can't really play it at full-key-flick-speed - Not every game has to be chess.
If you read through the emails, and design history on the "making of" - it really, really emphasizes how damn hard it is to build that original kernel of genius. And then the piling on of all the clones/knockoffs/descendants shows how trivial it is for others to stand on the shoulders of genius.
One challenge of the AppStore (and obviously the Android stores, and simply by definition the Web) - is that there is no real way to "reward" the original developers for their many months of hard work, when others can simply clone, tweak the artwork and mechanics (or in the case of Zynga, just the artwork) - and release and market their own duplicate of a game after someone else has done all the hard work.
But, sometimes this opportunity to reinvent is good - I've tried a lot of podcast apps - because I listen to podcasts for about 4-6 hours/day, and, while "Cast" is my current preferred App, I'm looking forward to what Marco does with Overcast. I would have hated it if we couldn't have lots of diversity in that marketplace. (And I would have shot myself if I had to use Apple's (original, horrible) "reel-reel" podcast player).
Another approach though are apps like Vesper - It's "another" notepad app - but the developers (Q Branch's John Gruber, Brent Simmons, and Dave Wiskus), took months and months to polish and refine till it creates a totally different notepad experience (and, in my opinion, the best one on the iPhone) - isn't it good that they had the opportunity to build something in the notepad category, in a different way?
All in all though, I hope that Sirvo's Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and Jimmy Hinson get the credit they deserve for building the "first of".
The mechanics of the two games are very similar, and obviously 2048 is a direct descendent of threes - but I wouldn't go so far to say that one is better than the other.
Threes has claim to originality, and first publication, so significant credit does need to go to Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and composer Jimmy Hinson of Sirvo for their original invention.
But, Threes does have some "issue" - one is really poor startup times. It's slow enough that I am more likely to play 2048 in my browser, than bother firing up Threes on my iPhone. The piece assignment in threes, is also somewhat less pleasing to my experience than in 2048, for whatever reason.
Also - sometimes you are looking for nice quick fun - I get a nice rush of (finger mashing) 2048 to the 512 stage, and then very, very quickly racing to 2048 instinctively (plus the crush of defeat if I make a flickering mistake and get my pieces out of place).
Threes requires a lot more attention - I can't really play it at full-key-flick-speed - Not every game has to be chess.
If you read through the emails, and design history on the "making of" - it really, really emphasizes how damn hard it is to build that original kernel of genius. And then the piling on of all the clones/knockoffs/descendants shows how trivial it is for others to stand on the shoulders of genius.
One challenge of the AppStore (and obviously the Android stores, and simply by definition the Web) - is that there is no real way to "reward" the original developers for their many months of hard work, when others can simply clone, tweak the artwork and mechanics (or in the case of Zynga, just the artwork) - and release and market their own duplicate of a game after someone else has done all the hard work.
But, sometimes this opportunity to reinvent is good - I've tried a lot of podcast apps - because I listen to podcasts for about 4-6 hours/day, and, while "Cast" is my current preferred App, I'm looking forward to what Marco does with Overcast. I would have hated it if we couldn't have lots of diversity in that marketplace. (And I would have shot myself if I had to use Apple's (original, horrible) "reel-reel" podcast player).
Another approach though are apps like Vesper - It's "another" notepad app - but the developers (Q Branch's John Gruber, Brent Simmons, and Dave Wiskus), took months and months to polish and refine till it creates a totally different notepad experience (and, in my opinion, the best one on the iPhone) - isn't it good that they had the opportunity to build something in the notepad category, in a different way?
All in all though, I hope that Sirvo's Asher Vollmer, Greg Wohlwend and Jimmy Hinson get the credit they deserve for building the "first of".
> But, Threes does have some "issue" - one is really poor startup times. It's slow enough that I am more likely to play 2048 in my browser, than bother firing up Threes on my iPhone. The piece assignment in threes, is also somewhat less pleasing to my experience than in 2048, for whatever reason.
I'll admit that still puzzles me. I'm not sure what Threes is doing but it does seem to take an inordinately long amount of time.
Adding a 'loading' spinner just emphasized that I was being forced to wait.
It's actually effected my playing. If I go to open Threes and it pops straight up (it was still in memory) I'll play a quick game. But often if I get that 'startup screen' I'll immediately exit the app and do something else like check Twitter or Safari.
I'll admit that still puzzles me. I'm not sure what Threes is doing but it does seem to take an inordinately long amount of time.
Adding a 'loading' spinner just emphasized that I was being forced to wait.
It's actually effected my playing. If I go to open Threes and it pops straight up (it was still in memory) I'll play a quick game. But often if I get that 'startup screen' I'll immediately exit the app and do something else like check Twitter or Safari.
From the post, it looks like they used Unity to build the game, which as an engine is rather overkill for a 2d puzzler. The loading times are probably tied to this.
Very good point. It had one of the slowest app startup times on my iPhone 4 which for a conceptually simple tile puzzler that you play on the train is pretty bad.
I think part of the issue is that they let it try and run on hardware where it really shouldn't, given the performance issues it seems to have on older iOS releases. (I don't know about current iOS releases, since I haven't tried Threes on them yet.)
> I'm not sure what Threes is doing but it does seem to take an inordinately long amount of time.
They've blamed it on Game Center in the past.
They've blamed it on Game Center in the past.
> One challenge of the AppStore (and obviously the Android stores, and simply by definition the Web) - is that there is no real way to "reward" the original developers for their many months of hard work, when others can simply clone, tweak the artwork and mechanics (or in the case of Zynga, just the artwork) - and release and market their own duplicate of a game after someone else has done all the hard work.
There certainly are ways. But it involves building involved games that are more than the distillation of one trick. I'm confident that we'll do well with our RPG on mobile in part because Zynga will literally never copy the game I'm working on and Kemco--the biggest purveyor of RPGs on handhelds--just plain makes worse games than what we'd actually allow out the door (that whole "professional pride" thing, I'd rather release nothing than release a bad game).
I like Threes. It has a really neat core conceit and I enjoy playing it. But another word for "core conceit" is "gimmick", and most gimmicks are hard to make exclusive.
There certainly are ways. But it involves building involved games that are more than the distillation of one trick. I'm confident that we'll do well with our RPG on mobile in part because Zynga will literally never copy the game I'm working on and Kemco--the biggest purveyor of RPGs on handhelds--just plain makes worse games than what we'd actually allow out the door (that whole "professional pride" thing, I'd rather release nothing than release a bad game).
I like Threes. It has a really neat core conceit and I enjoy playing it. But another word for "core conceit" is "gimmick", and most gimmicks are hard to make exclusive.
I probably should have differentiated between "Simple Games around a particular mechanic" and "Rich Environments or Game Engines."
The Simple Games around a particular mechanic can, as I've now learned, take many months to develop, and polish until they get to that nugget of experience. But, once that nugget has been published - it's tempting for others to rip off the mechanic. Tetris, Farmville, Candy Crush, PacMan, etc.. all fall into this field with threes.
The Simple Games around a particular mechanic can, as I've now learned, take many months to develop, and polish until they get to that nugget of experience. But, once that nugget has been published - it's tempting for others to rip off the mechanic. Tetris, Farmville, Candy Crush, PacMan, etc.. all fall into this field with threes.
How original can a game be? The first thing I thought back when I first heard of threes was that it looks and plays like a radically streamlined-for-mobile-adult-market version of Triple Town. While partly understand the proud and grief those devs have, I consider those guys comparably well off, at least almost everyone is giving them credit and 1024 et al. are still nowhere in blatant rip-off territory as for example the myriad of Flappy Bird clones.
I rarely buy apps, but I bought Threes. I would hope that anyone who's played and enjoyed 1024, 2048 or the myriad knock-offs would at least go and buy a copy of the app. It's a great little game and totally worth $2 (indeed, I'd say it's on par with the quality and playability of the early Nintendo "Game Watch" devices, and that's very high praise BTW. IIRC they retailed for around $25 in the 80's, so Threes is actually underpriced.)
Threes invented a wonderful game mechanic, and I'm reminded of the amazing indie games particularly on Kongregate. It's really something special to see all the creativity and joy that a great computer game can create.
My advice to the Threes inventors would be: rise above the imitators. Indeed, see them for what they are, gestures of respect (with the exception of 1024, who's makers are just assholes). One concrete step I'd take if I were you is to request that the web knock-offs in particular at the very least mention and/or link back to Threes (perhaps an iTunes link[1]).
[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/threes!/id779157948?mt=8
Threes invented a wonderful game mechanic, and I'm reminded of the amazing indie games particularly on Kongregate. It's really something special to see all the creativity and joy that a great computer game can create.
My advice to the Threes inventors would be: rise above the imitators. Indeed, see them for what they are, gestures of respect (with the exception of 1024, who's makers are just assholes). One concrete step I'd take if I were you is to request that the web knock-offs in particular at the very least mention and/or link back to Threes (perhaps an iTunes link[1]).
[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/threes!/id779157948?mt=8
Rip-offs are sad, but the fact that you spent 14 months doesn't make it a better game. It means you took too long to make it. Threes is a great game that has done well, but the vast vast majority of mobile apps don't make enough money to justify spending 14 months on. I really hope that wasn't full time work.
Also, time/effort/money spent developing a game does not make it better or worse than other games. Some dead simple things are awesome, and some things that took forever aren't. Again, I have and like Threes quite a bit, but the time it took to make doesn't make it better than anything else. I haven't played the knockoffs, but if they are doing well I suspect they are decent games in their own right.
Also, time/effort/money spent developing a game does not make it better or worse than other games. Some dead simple things are awesome, and some things that took forever aren't. Again, I have and like Threes quite a bit, but the time it took to make doesn't make it better than anything else. I haven't played the knockoffs, but if they are doing well I suspect they are decent games in their own right.
Inventing a new game is a creative exercise. I see it like writing a book. iPhone development took years. This reminds me of all the evidence that is pouring from Apple these days on the conference rooms, sketches, mockups etc.
I agree, but comparing an app to the iPhone seems a bit silly to me. This "ripoff" was apparently done in a few weeks and is currently #1 free app in the store. While obviously the original is going to take longer, I'm not sure it has to take 30x longer. And if it really does have to take 30x longer, that's probably a good sign that it's a terrible business model and you should only do this in your spare time as a hobby.
Frankly, the ripoffs are getting the original more exposure, and are probably helping their sales.
Frankly, the ripoffs are getting the original more exposure, and are probably helping their sales.
Please tell us, what is the correct amount of time to spend writing a game?
I'd suggest not spending so much time that you'd have to basically hit the lottery to not lose money on it. There is no "correct" amount of time, but the odds of losing money is really really high when you spend 14 months on an iPhone game. They happen to hit that lottery and so they are doing well, but the odds were not in their favor.
Take a look at your expected payout and budget your time and money accordingly. I know the app store is like a lottery, but you can make it so that your default is closer to break even with a lottery ticket, instead of default of losing tons of money with a possible lottery ticket.
Take a look at your expected payout and budget your time and money accordingly. I know the app store is like a lottery, but you can make it so that your default is closer to break even with a lottery ticket, instead of default of losing tons of money with a possible lottery ticket.
[deleted]
Does anyone have any stats on Threes' sales? I wonder if 2048 has significantly boosted them.
I bought threes after hearing about it in the comments of a thread about 2048, I'm sure other people did too
I would think the opposite is more likely to be true, although I'm betting that Threes was already in is long tail when 2048 was released.
The Android version of Threes wasn't even out yet
If you don't serve the market, there are a lot of people who very quickly will.
I have mixed feelings about this. While they may have mulled over this game for a year, it remains a relatively simple idea and execution (compared to most other mobile apps). Threes has always seemed a little odd to me given that it was endlessly pitched on HN by people who seemed to believe that the authors are owed some debt of gratitude (even before the clones appeared), while endless rich and innovative apps languish on the market. I'm not saying they don't, but the way they were singled out seemed incredibly strange.
There is something in this story about the value of ideas. For years we've heard that ideas are worthless, and execution is everything. In this case the execution was very easily cloned, and such is the case with most games and apps now, and the real novelty was the idea. So where does that leave that equation? Is the idea still worthless because the execution was cloned? Does the idea now have value? Etc.
I have mixed feelings about this. While they may have mulled over this game for a year, it remains a relatively simple idea and execution (compared to most other mobile apps). Threes has always seemed a little odd to me given that it was endlessly pitched on HN by people who seemed to believe that the authors are owed some debt of gratitude (even before the clones appeared), while endless rich and innovative apps languish on the market. I'm not saying they don't, but the way they were singled out seemed incredibly strange.
There is something in this story about the value of ideas. For years we've heard that ideas are worthless, and execution is everything. In this case the execution was very easily cloned, and such is the case with most games and apps now, and the real novelty was the idea. So where does that leave that equation? Is the idea still worthless because the execution was cloned? Does the idea now have value? Etc.
Some things are only simple in retrospect, like the laws of planetary motion as opposed to the older epicyclical orbit theory.
Three is a great game, but there were gaps in the market. The delayed Android release and the fact it couldn't be played on a desktop certainly left a vacuum others would try to fill.
Three is a great game, but there were gaps in the market. The delayed Android release and the fact it couldn't be played on a desktop certainly left a vacuum others would try to fill.
Go point. So definitely 2048 negative affected their bottom line.
The original devs really care and that's lovely. I've always felt guilty about playing 2048 despite having bought Threes twice (once on Android and once on iOS.)
I don't know what I'd do in their position; feeling disheartened is definitely one. It's a great game - granted I'm not a fan of the sound design so get frustrated sometimes - the game itself is fun and addictive.
I don't think this post will convince as many people as they think to switch to the original, but I hope it does them some good.
I don't know what I'd do in their position; feeling disheartened is definitely one. It's a great game - granted I'm not a fan of the sound design so get frustrated sometimes - the game itself is fun and addictive.
I don't think this post will convince as many people as they think to switch to the original, but I hope it does them some good.
I do not recall being addictive to any iOS game, except for Threes.
Don't slave for months producing easily replicable ideas in a market that is mobbed with people who replicate anything successful within days.
I may be alone on this, but I have difficulty distinguishing OP's argument from http://www.amazon.com/The-Quickening-Todays-Trends-Tomorrows...
>When an automated script that alternates pressing up and right and left every hundreth time can beat the game, then well, that's broken.
Except that it won't beat the game. You're lucky to get to a 256 block with that strategy.
Except that it won't beat the game. You're lucky to get to a 256 block with that strategy.
This is my very personal opinion on the matter:
It really pisses me off always I read from somebody how he got burned by a rip-off. If you do it right 2048 will make YOU famous and all future products of you will automatically get more attention, even if you don't make any money on Threes (which is a way worse name than 2048 in the eyes of hackers, btw). Talk to blogs, Youtube reviewers and to us HN users and show us how awesome your product is and if it is really better than 2048 then you will automatically win the crowd. Think about how much attention (and money) PSY now gets for everything he does, although he didn't get as much money directly from Gangnam Style as he could have gotten.
Just complaining and hoping that people will support you because it would be fair is cheap, sad, and it won't happen anyway.
It really pisses me off always I read from somebody how he got burned by a rip-off. If you do it right 2048 will make YOU famous and all future products of you will automatically get more attention, even if you don't make any money on Threes (which is a way worse name than 2048 in the eyes of hackers, btw). Talk to blogs, Youtube reviewers and to us HN users and show us how awesome your product is and if it is really better than 2048 then you will automatically win the crowd. Think about how much attention (and money) PSY now gets for everything he does, although he didn't get as much money directly from Gangnam Style as he could have gotten.
Just complaining and hoping that people will support you because it would be fair is cheap, sad, and it won't happen anyway.
The problem (for the developers) with Threes is that it cost $1.99 to buy. If they made the app free and monetized with ads/iaps (ie, how all major apps monetize), they would have a much more successful app.
Threes shouldn't be knocking their 'rip-offs', they generated a ton of publicity for the original game. Without playing 2048, I probably never would have heard of Threes.
From the very end - these guys sound REALLY bitter:
"""If you read this whole thing. Thank you. Wow. If you scrolled down here and skimmed it or just wanted to see if there was a prize at the end, well, you're here. It's about the journey, man.
Hopefully this post points to what we're getting at when we say that making these tiny games is littered with hard and painful times that are full of uncertainty and self-doubt. You never know if something is really going to work. It's not easy. But cloning or ripping off a design in a week, that's a bit different isn't it?"""
"""If you read this whole thing. Thank you. Wow. If you scrolled down here and skimmed it or just wanted to see if there was a prize at the end, well, you're here. It's about the journey, man.
Hopefully this post points to what we're getting at when we say that making these tiny games is littered with hard and painful times that are full of uncertainty and self-doubt. You never know if something is really going to work. It's not easy. But cloning or ripping off a design in a week, that's a bit different isn't it?"""
Things weren't that bad this time, but they've been seriously bitten in the past. As (one of them) got close to releasing their game Ridiculous Fishing last year, a competitor quickly cloned it and beat them to the app store and got a high ranking. They nearly canned the game because of a ripoff.
Truth is, the app store is a pretty scummy market.
Truth is, the app store is a pretty scummy market.
How did it get cloned before it was on the app store?
I went to look it up and saw I was missing a part of the story. They first released the game as a flash mini-game called Radical Fishing. The whole strange story is here:
http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461458/cloning-case-files-...
http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/5/3461458/cloning-case-files-...
That was a lesson on how NOT to launch idea you want to monetise — why anybody would want to pay fro something they have already for free? :)
They may not have realized how successful a concept it was until they had released the flash version.
It's not all bad for them, I found out about threes because of 2048 and came to the conclusion myself that threes was a better game and decided to pay for it.
I made this list with some of the variants of 2048
http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/
http://abimaelmartell.com/2048-showcase/
I probably would have purchased Threes if it weren't for the clones. Loved the process documentation. All I can say is keep up the good work. Fuck the haters.
There is even an Atari 2600 port of the 2048 game!
http://javatari.org/games/2048
Amazing...
http://javatari.org/games/2048
Amazing...
I tried to install Threes on Android, no ART support => I don't care anymore, playing 2048 and the clones :)
On Android, 2048 is 0.7mb. Threes is nearly 30! Surely that factors into some people's decisions.
Do you normally check the size of games?
I wouldn't even think to check that. At 30mb, Threes isn't that big (Retina assets and all). I would certainly understand your point if it was 300, but that doesn't seem excessive.
I can only think of a single game I've run into on my iPhone that surprised me with it's size. I'm not sure what it was (maybe an old version of Scrabble?), but it was a word game that was hundred of megs and didn't have much in the way of graphics.
I wouldn't even think to check that. At 30mb, Threes isn't that big (Retina assets and all). I would certainly understand your point if it was 300, but that doesn't seem excessive.
I can only think of a single game I've run into on my iPhone that surprised me with it's size. I'm not sure what it was (maybe an old version of Scrabble?), but it was a word game that was hundred of megs and didn't have much in the way of graphics.
Well, my device has just over 40Mb of internal storage. So, unless the app allows you to install to an SD card, it matters a lot!
Wow. That's more than 20 floppies!
Threes is ridiculously heavyweight. It takes half a minute to load which is funny considering it's graphics. And sometimes it's muted so i have to restart it...
Interesting. I never checked size of games unless there is a warning that I cant download more than 50mb over cellular. Only factors for me are ratings & price.
> Like it’s not ok to feel the way we do some of the time. But we do.
With that in mind, and with all fairness to the creators of Threes for their hard work, as evidenced in the article, I feel put off by their choice of the word 'rip-off'.
I say this as someone who has never played Threes, and never would have, but enjoyed many of the different forks and iterations of 2048.
With that in mind, and with all fairness to the creators of Threes for their hard work, as evidenced in the article, I feel put off by their choice of the word 'rip-off'.
I say this as someone who has never played Threes, and never would have, but enjoyed many of the different forks and iterations of 2048.
Who's the "Johnny" mentioned in a couple of the emails? Another game developer?
This is interesting, I don't particularly like the tone, but I would love to see a graph of (even relative) app downloads with the release of 1024 and announcement of 2048 (and all the various forks) on it.
I bet there's an effect there.
I bet it's in Three's favor.
And I bet any freshman-level stats student could rigorously show it.
I bet there's an effect there.
I bet it's in Three's favor.
And I bet any freshman-level stats student could rigorously show it.
That was a lot more article than I expected from the title. Wow.
I had tried threes.. But I didn't like it.
I do like 2048
Anyone notice parallels to the software patents debate?
Original Game? Ever play Triple Town?
This is a shamefully non-responsive web page design for a company that builds mobile apps. The sidebar is set to cover the main text even with my page width set to almost 1000 px wide. Even worse, the sidebar is a fixed position and on top element that I can't scroll away from or out from under.
I expect better web design from the team behind Threes, which I bought and liked.
I expect better web design from the team behind Threes, which I bought and liked.
Okay, Okay. I get the crying from the threes developers and all, but there is a key difference between why 2048 did phenomenally well and threes didn't.
2048 is a game that was HACKED together and displayed on HACKER news and made open source for the sole purpose of independent HACKING, and indie creativity.
In fact, 2048 has got to be the best case study of how HACKING went viral, not so much about how the game went viral, even if that is what theoretically happened.
From that perspective, the THREEs game is just collateral damage and not really what matters here. The Threes game's developers in effect are all crying about how people are misusing their ideas, copying all the wrong details, and not copying what is the true flattery of the game in the first place. And they wrote a blog post to brag about it all! But little do they understand that people (hackers) take what they like and leave the rest.
2048 is a game that was HACKED together and displayed on HACKER news and made open source for the sole purpose of independent HACKING, and indie creativity.
In fact, 2048 has got to be the best case study of how HACKING went viral, not so much about how the game went viral, even if that is what theoretically happened.
From that perspective, the THREEs game is just collateral damage and not really what matters here. The Threes game's developers in effect are all crying about how people are misusing their ideas, copying all the wrong details, and not copying what is the true flattery of the game in the first place. And they wrote a blog post to brag about it all! But little do they understand that people (hackers) take what they like and leave the rest.
2048 was free. Threes wasn't. That's literally the only reason it has more downloads. Threes was #1 on top paid for a long time.
This is literally the point that makes me get upset: Cloning a game, because specific people doesn't agree with decisions taken by the developers (features, pricing, etc.).
Is it really that hard to let indie projects have a chance?
Is it really that hard to let indie projects have a chance?
To be fair Threes! has been at the top of app store charts, so I wouldn't say it didn't succeed at returning on investment.
ROI is not the complete issue here. The fact is 2048 is a clone(or inspiration) of Threes. 2048 is gaining more popularity and some people think that it is a better game. Also, the originality lines are getting blurred.
Threes did pretty well too.
The worst part about this is that neither the 1024 or 2048 developers do so much as acknowledge Threes as the original inspiration. It's really pathetic. Just some losers pretending to be something they're not. Common shithead piracy.
You've let your vitriol get in the way of fact-checking.
Found at the bottom of http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/ :
"Created by <a href=http://gabrielecirulli.com/>Gabriele Cirulli.</a> Based on <a href=https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1024!/id823499224>1024 by Veewo Studio</a> and conceptually similar to <a href=http://asherv.com/threes/>Threes by Asher Vollmer.</a>"
[Please ignore the idiot URLifier.]
Found at the bottom of http://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/ :
"Created by <a href=http://gabrielecirulli.com/>Gabriele Cirulli.</a> Based on <a href=https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/1024!/id823499224>1024 by Veewo Studio</a> and conceptually similar to <a href=http://asherv.com/threes/>Threes by Asher Vollmer.</a>"
[Please ignore the idiot URLifier.]
That's cool. Four days later, there's a shout-out to Threes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140314133031/http://gabrieleci...
It looks like the guy credited Threes within four days of his game's release, and has yet to remove that credit. It's entirely possible that he was only aware of 1024 at the time that he made is game.
Please get angry about something that matters. We need people to not waste their anger on unimportant things. :)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140314133031/http://gabrieleci...
It looks like the guy credited Threes within four days of his game's release, and has yet to remove that credit. It's entirely possible that he was only aware of 1024 at the time that he made is game.
Please get angry about something that matters. We need people to not waste their anger on unimportant things. :)
2048 has always credited 1024, and 1024 has always credited Threes.
nice, but simplicity is the key to mainstream
I saw 2048 on HN, but downloaded 1024 because I wanted to play on an iPad rather than a desktop. I like 1024 better than 2048 because it has a little more richness.
Yesterday, I tried to pay and download Threes, but it said it requires iOS 6. I never upgrade my iOS devices after too many screwups from Apple. So not sure if I will ever play Threes.
I don't know much about iOS development, but I wonder why a game which is basically a 4x4 grid doesn't work on every single version of iOS. 1024 works just fine.
Yesterday, I tried to pay and download Threes, but it said it requires iOS 6. I never upgrade my iOS devices after too many screwups from Apple. So not sure if I will ever play Threes.
I don't know much about iOS development, but I wonder why a game which is basically a 4x4 grid doesn't work on every single version of iOS. 1024 works just fine.
> I wonder why a game which is basically a 4x4 grid doesn't work on every single version of iOS. 1024 works just fine.
It's pretty much an effort vs. payoff thing; the dev environment get nicer each iteration, and iOS < 6 is in a fractional minority.
It's pretty much an effort vs. payoff thing; the dev environment get nicer each iteration, and iOS < 6 is in a fractional minority.
Yep. iOS 6 has some nice APIs, iOS 7 is even better.
According to a company called Mixpanel Trends [1], iOS 7.x is currently on 89% of all Apple devices. iOS 6 is just under 10% and iOS 5 and before is under 1.5%.
Since you can't downgrade and devices ship with the latest version, that means that anyone running iOS 5 or iOS 6 is also running an older device with lower performance. If you're doing a resource heavy game it may not even run well on those devices even if you did work to support them.
1. https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_7
According to a company called Mixpanel Trends [1], iOS 7.x is currently on 89% of all Apple devices. iOS 6 is just under 10% and iOS 5 and before is under 1.5%.
Since you can't downgrade and devices ship with the latest version, that means that anyone running iOS 5 or iOS 6 is also running an older device with lower performance. If you're doing a resource heavy game it may not even run well on those devices even if you did work to support them.
1. https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_7
Sure, but my point is that this doesn't qualify as a "resource heavy game" at all.
Threes certainly wouldn't no. But the ease of development and small size of the lost market makes it a pretty easy choice for many developers.
Even finding a way to test software on iOS 5 or 6 is a huge pain. Apple makes it very difficult to test on anything other than the latest version unless you happen to have a device with that OS laying around.
Even finding a way to test software on iOS 5 or 6 is a huge pain. Apple makes it very difficult to test on anything other than the latest version unless you happen to have a device with that OS laying around.
The indie game developers care about originality, passion, the sweat and hard months of work, the dedication to the craft. I think the point of Asher's essay is to show how much love and effort went into it, and that they were indeed the first to ship a full, polished game with that concept. That's where their pride and satisfaction comes from.
The startup people care about end user experience, how good the PR is, and ultimately how numbers matter more than everything else.
I don't think there's a wrong or right vision - it's two very different communities.
Indie game devs dream of making amazing games with other talented, inspiring people - and as long as they make enough money to live not too uncomfortably, they're fine. Their biggest dream is to receive an IGF award and see their game on Steam. Maybe make enough money to be able to start a studio with a bunch of their friends, but definitely not to "scale" to EA-size.
Startup people dream of growing their company to Facebook size, making billions of dollars, scaling, and being on Techcrunch.
It's two very different communities, and it's fun to see the two worlds collide.
Addendum: if you feel like this post is vindictive, bitter, etc.- remember: the best way to interpret a view different than yours is to understand that there is a worldview in which those statements are perfectly coherent, logical, and meaningful. Asher, Greg, and all the other people mentioned in this post are successful, highly respected members of the indie game dev community - not a bunch of guys who are angry for whatever silly reason.