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.