In Defense of 2048

I really love Threes. But that isn't what I've come here to talk about. In recent days, folks have become increasingly upset with the “cloning” of Threes. Despite my love of Threes and proclivity to play it over 2048, I would like to argue for 2048’s right to exist. Markets define how software developers interact with their audiences, whether they like it or not. We like to think that the ideas and thoughts we create are our own, that free will is governing our actions. So when 2048 was released, Gabriele Cirulli was condemned as an imitator. Technically an imitator of an imitator.

Let’s digest some of the design of Threes for a bit. A set of basic cards (1,2,3) are drawn in sets of 4 onto the board. This is a similar mechanic used in games like Gin Rummy and Mau Mau. This is also a similar mechanic to how “cards” are drawn in Triple Town. Did those who designed these games come about these ideas freely?

At the essence of Cerulli's 2048, is this design. This is what iteration can look like. As complaints piled in that 2048 was stealing the thunder of Threes, new iterations that completely changed the progression of the game were being developed. 2048 has spawned a veritable open source game jam. Many are upset, including Asher Vollmer the creator of Threes, that 2048 stole Threes’ thunder. The fact that 2048 is free and open source makes it more commercially appealing to Threes upfront cost of a few bucks.

So what is free will? When a consumer sees 2048 for free, Threes for a few bucks and chooses 2048 over Threes we tell ourselves that this is free will. Desire to not spend money brings order to our decisions. Desire will also enable us to then spend the few bucks to try Threes. The desires which lead me to prefer the progression of Threes then orders me to continue playing it. This is not free will. It is this same order which governs the design process. Iteration is the combination of different desires acting concurrently to bring new order.

There are those in the games press and developers which fear this desire. Journalists often fear that the market is over-saturated with choice and this inhibits choice because it limits discovery of games which they value over others. This maybe true, but what right do they have as thought leaders? When developers call for walled gardens, they are arguing that they deserve a monopoly over the order that desire brings. Humans are often irrational and our desires inevitably lead us to folly but if we are to allow our desires to be governed by the desires of a few then we are to deny ourselves progress.

I feel like if you were to type 2 more paragraphs it would degrade into timecube

We are all time cube.

This isn't about markets, it's about properly rewarding innovation.

Do you know why patents exist? It's because without them many innovators don't have a fighting chance to recoup their investment. Whether that is in intellectual property, new consumer products, pharmaceutical drugs, whatever. Without at least some time limited protection why would somebody like Vollmer ever bother to create the next Threes if someone can just ripoff of his work in a fraction of the time it took his team to create Threes and undercut him as well?

While most work is derivative of others, it's a question of degree. The problem unique to games and software is the speed and relative ease you can copy, tweak and redistribute a clone. Threes undoubtedly drew inspiration from a variety of sources but is clearly it's own thing. 1024 and the 2048 clones barely change much from iteration to iteration.

Bottom line is who do you want making your entertainment creators like Vollmer or imitators like Cirulli (however skillful he is)? If you want innovation and new ideas, then you need to give guys like Vollmer a fighting chance to be rewarded for their work.

I don't agree that the imitators are denying the 'creators' the chance to be rewarded for their work.

Can we all just agree that the guy that took Cirulli's open source work and slapped ads on top of it is kind of a dick?

I don't see how that article supports your position.

Just because some indie creators are having great success doesn't mean they all are, or that they are receiving fair compensation for their work.

It's not like clones happen only to mega-successful games either. Or that it's only well menaing 19 year olds doing the cloning. e.g. Zynga has frequently accused of heavily reskinning existing games.

fwiw most of the creators mentioned in the article found their success on PC (Braid, Super Meat Boy, MInecraft, Stanley Parable) where distribution platforms like Steam curate their listings significantly more than Apple or Android does, which makes it much harder for clones to reach an equivalent audience.

@slag: Of the indie creators that aren't having financial success due to the kind of cloning Cirulli is accused of how many of their clones are? If it is an issue can you name an example?

I don't mean outright redistribution of art, code or music for sale or rent(free with ads). None of that was present in the case of the original 2048(it was present in what @thunderslash: mentions) and isn't what I'm talking about here.