This is a pretty true statement, in today's context.

As uncomfortable as it may be, art is inherently iterative and derivative. It's the act of assembling your various influences, combining and changing them, and creating a new output based on what you've taken in.

Especially in a contemporary context, so much has been created that it is borderline impossible already to create something that is wholly new, wholly unique. Every single piece of creative expression has some shared DNA with things that came before. The question of how much shared DNA is too much is a very difficult, and subjective question that deserves a lot of thought and requires the consideration of context.

I prefer Threes, but that may be because, as a "gamer" (god help me I used that term), I have a bevy of built-in problem solving tools that evens out its difficulty curve, and makes its mechanics more obvious; makes the ways to manipulate the board and predict patterns more clear.

If 2048 is more successful because it has an easier learning curve, that's more accessible to more people, doesn't that make it on some level better than Threes from a game design perspective?

If 2048 performs better because there's no barrier to entry ($$$) and it makes its money off ads, isn't that a superior business strategy?

Obviously equating success with quality can be problematic, but these are real hard truths about how 2048 has performed vs. Threes in the current app environment.

This doesn't really address the ethical question involved, but it's a fascinating thing to consider. Could 2048 be a better game despite its cloniness? I think it could be! So how do we consider the ethical implications then? Is it our duty to shun what might be a better game simply because it's derivative?

If anyone's interested in more ruminations on this topic, especially as it relates to other media, I highly recommend looking up the video series "Everything is a Remix". I found it to be a thoughtful and enlightening rumination on what "creativity" means in the contemporary context. It's a very tough question but worth thinking about IMO.

Thanks for the article, Kleppy!

EDIT: I thought my first comment disappeared so I rewrote this but now my original comment is there again and I feel HELLA DUMB

I cringed when Cliff Blezinski was singing the praises of 2048 on twitter.

I think with these things people see the dollar amount and their eyes glaze over. Yeah it's fair to say that 2048 and 1024 had a monetary impact on Threes but thats one of the perils of a platform that is so agnostic of the content it serves up, it doesn't help you to be first or original. But I think ultimately the success of Threes is it's own story, the developers behind the clones are not launching their careers as the next kings of mobile game development, they didn't usurp that title. It's unfortunate that an environment has been created that fosters a whole industry based on bandwagoning onto whatever is popular in the app store but I think ultimately those people are playing a different ballgame.

Best of luck to to the game developers, talented and creative people can bounce back from worse.

Life ain't fair.

Excellent article. It sucks, but if your game only comes out on iOS expect there to be clones on every other platform.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Additionally, the FAQ response also says that Threes wasn't available on a compatible platform. Seeing an opportunity and/or an area where there's unmet demand isn't ripping anybody off - it's good business sense. When I first heard of Threes, it wasn't available on Android. I found 2048 in the meantime, and I've enjoyed it. I don't see any reason to spend money on Threes now that it is - from my perspective - late to the party.

Patrick mentioned that Ridiculous Fishing was cloned before it was released. As I recall, the same thing happened with Johan Sebastian Joust (which, as far as I know, STILL isn't out?). Beating somebody to market with a similar product isn't a crime. Again, it's good business sense.

Doom had countless clones, but it was still by far and away the best and most popular game. As others have said above, if the "clones" of Threes are more popular than the "original," the argument could be made that they are, in fact, superior games.

Great article Patrick. These past few weeks I have felt like a crazy person seeing all of these mention of 2048, but no mention of Threes.

This totally should have been titled "Send in the Clones"! Like, CMONNNN

I've edited this. My text is bold.

"Jason told me he’s a big fan of thatgamecompany’s Journey, and Threes co-creator Asher Vollmer once worked at that studio. His respect for Asher's work was so great that he considered breaking into his house and stealing his VCR, but in view of the logistics and the declining popularity of VCRs he decided that he could only feasibly steal his intellectual property. That’s how he found Threes, and became entranced by it. 1024, he told me, was created for his fiancée, who due to a rare genetic disorder was unable to simply download and play the real Threes!, and he only later decided to publish it to the App Store and Google Play after a period of such extended deliberation that his clone was literally the first one available.

For legal reasons, he does not consider 1024 a clone."

My score in Doge2048 is 820... and I'm done with this "genre."

On topic: This rampant cloning and the douchebags (people like Ketchapp) that perpetuate it are what ruined app stores and mobile games to begin with. This is why I only buy games from established studios, and most of those assholes are only interested in nickel-and-diming me to death with in-app purchases. I simply don't know who to trust.

Even though in my opinion Threes is a significantly better game, I can see why 2048 would be more popular even if both games were free. 2048 is both simpler and faster, which are both popular traits in mobile games. The problem for me and others is that it's too simple: I got a 2048 in 2048 on my first go, whereas getting a 1536 in Threes still feels like an achievement every time I manage it. The hidden depth and complexity in Threes may appeal to people looking for a game requires thought and strategy, but most people aren't looking for that on iOS/Android. Its the games that are relatively passive but mechanically satisfying like the excellent Tiny Wings that tend to thrive on mobile. 2048 fits that mould better than Threes

And how is this different from any game in existence? Would there be an Unreal Tournament without Quake, possibly, possibly not. Just look at all the games and genres, for example, there was DOTA, and now we have like 20+ moba games around, which are all different, but the core is pretty much the same in all of them. Same for every single genre.

Basically the facade changes but the games are still the same under the hood. That is more noticed on shoddy mobile games, because there's only so much you can change, before you hit the limits on the device.

Alas nothing new.

If by better version you mean the free version than yes, 2048 is better...

Now we know the inevitable faith of all games on mobile. If your game is based on a simple gameplay concept and you're not asking $0 for it than someone will and it will sink the original in a matter of hours. Now I'm excited to see talented developers abandon the toxic wasteland that is the mobile market to make games on actually worthwhile platforms.

This is an incredibly kind comment. Thank you.

I have a hard time calling those guys "designers." They didn't design anything. They are programmers and that's it. The good thing is that each clone only generates a fraction of the original game's revenue and only in areas that the original game does not serve such as the ad driven market. I don't see a problem with other guys filling the void. If you want the professional version with smooth animations, graphics, sounds, and gameplay pony up the $2.99. If you want an ad riddled clone with with 10% of the aesthetic of the original for free, then you have that option. I don't see them as taking too much from the original's market.

“Good artists copy, great artists steal"

Vanilla Ice used the same mentality to defend his shitty single "Ice Ice Baby", and he lost in a copy-write lawsuit. So how is this situation any different?

There is a huge difference between inspiration and directly cloning from the success of others.

@patrickklepek: Any of that made you reconsider the pros and cons of 100% open platforms?

I prefer 2048, actually. It doesn't have the garbage 2 and 1 pieces that can just fuck you over randomly, and its sliding makes more sense to me.

#shotsfired

Kidding aside, good stuff Patrick!

@johnham: Don't feel hella dumb, your comment was hella informative (hellaformative?) and very on point :D

The whole thing is a real bummer and you got to feel for the guys who put in over a year of work to make something super fun. I just keep having to remind people that their 2048 scores are completely meaningless and that they're bad people.

It's so depressing how much bullshit goes on in these app stores. Like others have said, I don't know who to trust, so I end up having no involvement with any of it.

As a result, my Nexus 7 is languishing in dust. More fool me, I guess.

On a lighter note, that was a suberbly balanced and overall well-written article. Props to you, Patrick!

Damn straight. I know there's some general aversion to the term "games journalist" from those working in the field, but this is some damn fine reporting and the best coverage I've seen about this whole kerfuffle. Well done @patrickklepek!

I'd love to know more about Wolhwend and the other creator's consideration of F2P for Threes. It seems like he was resistant to limiting the game to make people buy "power ups" and other sleazy shit, and rightfully so, but there are other options that I wish more mobile designers would consider.

I still play Jetpack Joyride almost every night for a few minutes at least, and that game drew the masses in with F2P, but didn't limit gameplay in any way. You could just buy the option to double your coins to get upgrades faster if you wanted to unlock things faster.

If threes was originally completely free with no limitations other than an optional $0.99 purchase to double your score forever, for those folks who wanted to compete with their friends (or something even more clever and satisfying that I can't come up with) I can't help but imagine this situation might never have happened.

Actually, Mr. Vanilla never had a lawsuit. He settled outside of court by paying Queen and Bowie for the sample directly and now they're all credited with him in the liner notes.

Also, this situation is different. Sampling is nothing like this case with Threes. A better example would be a band releasing a cover version of a song that's pretty similar to the source with no attribution to the original artist.

Sampling still occurs all the time and now is, in some ways, actually potentially legally protected.

@hobozero: Thanks amigo!

@patrickklepek: Well, yes. Also that.

I always feel bad for Vlambeer

@dohers: Its simplicity is actually why I like 2048 better than Threes.

I actually purchased Threes before I ever heard of 2048, and played it a few times before I got bored. 2048 captured my attention much more easily. For me, if I'm going to play a game, it either has to be something I can get invested in (something interesting, complicated, has a story, or something along those lines) or something that is relatively mindless and yet still fun - something I could play while waiting in line at the coffee shop or while the commercials play when I'm waiting for Cosmos to come back on. Threes is just not complex enough for me to achieve the former, and 2048 achieves the latter much better than Threes (without being boring).

You know, if you click it...it goes away.

@bananeurysm: Oh gee. it's almost as if the site tries to promote stuff their staff has worked hard on. Wah wah wah

@bananeurysm:

why is your content always at the top, patrick. I really do try and tolerate you, because I know you're trying. but when the crew releases two quicklooks and i still your stuff on the front page of GB...it just irks me. It's almost literally always the first thing.

If I'm not mistaken, the promo blocks at the top of the homepage are designed to push content that you've already viewed to the bottom. Ironically, by not reading Patrick's stuff, you're more likely to see his pieces appear in the header. Also, complaining that his work is visible is a shitty form of tolerance.

@joshwent:

Thanks for proving my point. That essentially means he lost his case, because he was indeed threatened with legal action. Failing to give credit and not paying for the royalties associated with sampling isn't legal, and to me is very similar to what we're dealing with here.

Threes bought.

Great article, Patrick! That was definitely a worthwhile read.

Really great article, Patrick!

Still wondering where the middle road is between this, and what King was doing with their products.

King trademarks "candy":

FUCK THESE GUYS PROTECTING THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO PREVENT CLONES

Flappy bird becomes popular:

FUCK THIS GAME ITS RIPPING OF NINTENDOS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Flappy bird gets taken down:

FUCK THOSE GUYS WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS GAME ITS GREAT AND ORIGINAL

Threes gets cloned:

FUCK THOSE CLONES THEY STOLE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

There sems to be a wierd dialog going on with IOS games and IP...

You know, if some other studio wants to clone Mass Effect and call it Space Trek: Gravity and you meet other races that are similar and there's intergalactic renegade space cops and hot blue ladies.... I'm not exactly going to pound my heels against the floor. What if Space Trek: Gravity is even better, bigger and sexier than Mass Effect ever was?

I'm seeing this sentiment here and there in the comments. The nose-in-the-air "I prefer to buy my games, ah-thank-you!" Well maybe not that snooty but I figured these statistics are relevant:

http://www.wildtangent.com/blog/2014/03/research-finds-value-exchange-ads-benefit-gamers-developers-and-marketers/

Seems the overwhelming majority of people don't care or prefer ad supported games rather than paying 99 cents or more. Yeah the mobile app space is a weird beast, and it seemed like for a short while the traditional "buy game once, play game, end of transaction" model could have survived but that fight seems to have been lost. Seems like things could have played out pretty differently had Three's gone with an ad supported model with an opt out purchase.

@patrickklepek Google Play Store looks a lot like the Apple App Store...

yep!, THIS is the type of stuff i come to patrick klepek for and why i like patrick, we all disagree with him in one aspect or another when it comes to social issues,

but i feel once he gets down to doing some journalism like this and like the Eve Online piece a while back, no one can touch him, excellent work patrick.

@patrickklepek: Good timing on the screenshot of Antoine's twitter feed. 3,333 tweets!

@etherealclarity: Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. And I totally understand. I play stuff like Temple Run and Fruit Ninja for the exact same reason.

Mobile gaming is a hole.

no, we don't.

Posting from my phone @patrickklepek so I apologize for the link not being embedded. When you posted that picture with the "clone of a clone of a clone" caption, it immediately made me remeber this NIN song:

http://youtu.be/pVB_DI4ajKA

"THREES is made by 3 people," from their website.

"As half of the team behind Threes, Wohlwend has reason to be frustrated."

This ought to make Wohlwend a third of the team.

Also some punctuation you might want to edit @patrickklepek. Here in the second part: “I still sort of check the App Store top charts,” he said, “and it’s still number one, ‘’Oh, maybe it’ll go down a little bit!’

and I’m betting that he rests on that at night when he goes to sleep. ‘It had to be somebody, it might as well be me.’’ Missing the second single quote mark.

In the 10th graf: “No,” he said over email. “Never. As I said, I made it for fun and for my fiancée. Missing closing quote.

And indeed those two pictures appear to both be of the Apple Store.

Lovely read, though.