People get upset about Zynga and other big game companies cloning games, yet this 'clone' is a direct copy of graphics, etc. - minus adding multi-player capability.
Not a single mention of this in this thread either at the time of posting this comment.
The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market. If he had no interest in continuing to make money off of this game, why would he be interested in pursuing legal action against someone? He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O.
> He'd probably just withdraw the lawsuit when it got too complicated, as that seems to be his M.O.
I agree with your point but this makes you sound like a complete asshole. Just because you can't imagine giving up $50k/day doesn't mean that he's weak or stupid for doing it (which is the implication I get from this sentence).
Just getting a little geeky about social interactions here: the asshole bit is saying "that seems to be his M.O." about anybody- it reduces a person into a predictable pattern and insults their personal agency, even if valid. It doesn't actually imply weak or stupid, it implies predictable, reducible- that's where the insult is. A person can be strong and intelligent and still be insulted by "that seems to be her M.O."
MY GOD! Why is everyone so obcessed with the 50k/day. It's his game and he can do with it whatever he wants! Just because it earns him a lot of money and it is the #1 game in the app stores it doesn't make him obligated to make the choices you would make.
Maybe taking it off the market is a stupid decision (which I'm in no position to comment, as the context is a bit too complex). There are guys that accept to be kicked in the nuts for a youtube video. It's stupid, but it's their nuts. They can do whatever they want with it.
With that said. While IMO it's ok to do this king of thing, the guy still has it's copyright. By your logic "I don't steal because I may be arrested" is a valid thought. It's not. You shouldn't steal because it's WRONG!
Agreed. He is incredibly unlikely to pursue anyone and has actually given a few of the knockoffs his blessing. You're wrong on one point though...the $50k/day isn't going anywhere. The ads are still active on 100M+ installs. He is still raking in cash and will until people stop opening the game on their devices.
My stance on this particular matter is that he has done everything short of open sourcing this game, up to and including giving his blessing to several knockoffs. 100M+ people have the original game, and that game is still generating substantial revenue for him. Everyone that already had the game when he pulled it is likely sticking to playing the original. I'm not making a Flappy Bird clone, but I think that those who are probably aren't going to be facing any lawsuits. That's all I said.
"Doesn't generate money anymore", "Won't sue me", etc. those are all not in the slightest reasons to infringe copyright. In fact there are never reasons to do so.
The only reason why people are doing so at the moment is because they will get upvoted and retweeted because it's Flappy Bird.
The original creator gave up $50k/day and took the #1 game off the market.
Why do people think he gave up $50k/day? The hundred million or so installs are still out there. The advertising account is still active and in full effect. It is entirely possible he is making even more from the controversy.
Please do not lump me in with the jealous haters who have made the whole flappy bird thing so annoying (jealousy is tiring and obvious, and it has fueled 98% of the commentary on this) -- I applaud him for what he has done. But there is a lot of fiction surrounding this story.
You don't have to actually copy assets to be guilty of copyright infringement. Copying the look and feel is sufficient. See any of the Tetris or Pac-Man cases, for example.
This is unlikely, especially as its fairly easily demonstrated that they are, pixel-for-pixel, quite different. There have been a lot of non-Nintendo green pipes, internet commentators with small reference pools notwithstanding.
So as long as one uses things that might already have infringed copyright, it's okay to do so?
I strongly disagree. If there's a problem it's the (allegedly) original copyright holder and the (allegedly) copyright violator's problem. This does not allow others to copy it, just because it's currently viral.
The gameplay would be more interesting if, instead of progressing even if you don't jump trough one pipe( like now ), you would always start from the beginning. Then the bird population would get more and more sparse as you progress; with a possible checkpoint system.
It just changed so that the pipes have a bigger gap, its pretty fun now, you can really race people. Someone called 'flappy swag' was just ahead of me ...
It was much more reactive at ~200 players, I was playing around modifying the javascript to remove collision detection (there's a method with a long ternary statement that ends ? !1 : !0, change the both to !1) etc until it hit ~700 users and started dying for me (presumably when it hit hacker news).
To write a secure online multiplayer game in javascript, the server would have to assume the client has been compromised by default and verify everything server-side. This wouldn't work for anything fast paced, but it'd suffice for RPGs and puzzle games.
For example, in an RPG, a client says it's moved 5 tiles north. The server receives it, but before broadcasting it to other players, the server would have to read the map and make sure it's valid (e.g. there's nothing in the way).
People get upset about Zynga and other big game companies cloning games, yet this 'clone' is a direct copy of graphics, etc. - minus adding multi-player capability.
Not a single mention of this in this thread either at the time of posting this comment.