INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEANS NOTHING ON MOBILE

In other news, King Digital is planning to do an IPO. Following Zynga's precedent, we can watch them die a slow death (or maybe a hastened one, having turned public opinion against themselves).

I guess I haven't played either Candy Crush or Candy Swipe, so I probably shouldn't be making those kinds of statements. It just seems like they're all part of a subgenre where ripping off is commonplace.

author=thatbennyguy
Actually, after looking at this Candy Swipe video, I've completely changed my mind on this subject just now.

The Candy Swipe mechanic is completely different to Candy Crush. The graphics are the only thing that's the same, and the gameplay is way better designed in Candy Crush, there are far more features, addicting gameplay and a good level difficulty progression. The only thing that's similar about Candy Swipe and Candy Crush is that they both use very similar graphics, which I guess is grounds for suing, but really? How many different ways can you draw candy? Sure, they may have been inspired by that original game, but the original Candy Swipe is a pretty slack game, to be honest. I mean, Candy Crush Saga may have been derivative for its graphics, but saying Candy Crush is a complete rip-off of Candy Swipe is an exaggeration, because I discovered it shares virtually none of the same gameplay features, except that it's a puzzle game that kind of looks like each other.

It's like if Tetris sued every puzzle game that kind of looks like them, because they use the same mechanic of lining up blocks to make them disappear.

If what is shown in the video is all there is to Candy Swipe, then yeah...wow. He spent three years on that? It's as bare bones as that type of game can get. Perhaps he started learning to code 3 years ago, only able to spend 1 hour a month, but it seems misleading to say he spent 3 years on that game and use that to gain sympathy.

Just a few minutes of watching the other one shows that it's leaps and bounds beyond. I really doubt that people care that the graphics are related to candy. They play Candy Crush because it's got better gameplay.

I'm all for preserving the rights of the little guys, but from what I can tell this nothing to be concerned about. The theme is candy and they used the same colors. How dare they use green pieces when he used green pieces!

Candy Crush is boring anyway. I don't know why everyone cares so much about it.

author=Crystalgate
The letter sounds like complete BS though. It's done to honor his dead mother and he needs it to feed his family? Hey, throw in a few orphans who need your monthly donations as well when you're at it.

Usually I like to give the victim the benefit of the doubt but honestly, this does come across as kind fake to me.

The problem with candy crush saga is their evil player manipulation. They are not designing games. At their core development is pure "how to make you want to spend money" and disguise it as a game. I remember reading somewhere in this forum about the tactics used by king and other developer (i think it was from the guys of puzzle & dragons).

author=ricifidi
The problem with candy crush saga is their evil player manipulation. They are not designing games. At their core development is pure "how to make you want to spend money" and disguise it as a game. I remember reading somewhere in this forum about the tactics used by king and other developer (i think it was from the guys of puzzle & dragons).

It's not a problem with Candy Crush. It's a problem with mobile games in general. Just look at all the recent RPGs that have been released to mobile with blatant money making gameplay. The Final Fantasy game, Secret of Mana. There was that Megaman game. Big name console companies like Capcom and Square Enix are all following suit.

"Psychology weaponized towards the bank accounts of apes"

I'm not well versed on these subjects, so correct me if I'm wrong. But the problem is not the mechanics, because no matter how similar they are, they're not grounds for this kind of legal action. You can't trademark (nor copyright, for that matter) an idea or "game mechanic". ...This is strictly about the similarities of the names, which can lead to "confusion". (It pertains to unfair business practices and all that.)

The thing about trademarks is that they're practically auctions. It's all about who's has the deeper pockets, because the guy with the most moneys pays the most taxes, or something like that. So it's in "everybody's" best interest that they keep that property instead; Things like who was first matter little. Also, trademark holders are legally required to challenge anyone who may be infringing on their rights, so...

For better of for worse, all that there is left to do is to change the name of the game. Even big companies have done this to avoid messing with trademark laws, and their games have not been any less successful because of it: Ever heard of Resident Evil or Star Fox? ...It must suck for this to happen once a name was established, but if the game is good, it will continue to thrive.

This is a similar situation to the whole Apple VS Samsung debate where they can't figure out who owns the rights to rectangular screens or batteries. Or Sega's infamous directional arrow copyright. I've personally played both Candy Crush and Candy Swipe, and can honestly say Candy Swipe is complete garbage as a game. I made a two-player pong rip-off in C# in only three hours when I was 17, yet this guy supposedly took months or years to make Candy Swipe. Candy Crush is a colorful, well-designed game (in terms of gameplay, not money) that appeals to casual gamers, who might be willing to spend three or four dollars to unlock the next set of twenty or thirty levels every few weeks or months. The only similarity is the use of candy in both gameplay and the name.

The ratings for both of the games have been brought up (Candy Swipe) or brought down (Candy Crush) by the uneducated masses of reviewers who are giving one or five stars because they read an article about the existence of more than one candy-themed game. Look up "Candy" on the App Store. HUNDREDS OF GAMES. OH NO. LAWSUIT! What's going on here would be like all of us suing each other because we all used the VXAce character generator to make similar characters. If anything, Hasbro, the owners of the old board game Candyland, should be suing everybody for making a candy-themed game. The only "intellectual property" anybody owns are the deformed characters in Candy Crush, who are iconic to that one game.

If Nintendo and Sega managed to get over everything that they allegedly took from each other with only a few lawsuits, then there shouldn't be any reason to fight over the mobile candy game market. Whoever has the better game is going to win no matter what any court decision says, because people don't buy or play games based on name anymore. Just look at every Sonic game in the past ten years.