But anyway on the subject, personally I do not think this is a problem. If gamers have no experience with the “original” does that mean they should be concerned that the game they are enjoying is an almost exact duplicate? No. And if they do have experience with the original, and the “new” game offers nothing new, then I’m sure they will find something else to do with their time.

It’s a bit of a different issue for reviewers which are theoretically experienced gamers and HAVE played the originals most of the time. But even then, they should be judging the game on what it is, not on what it imitates. Mentioning the earlier game, of course, is always a good idea. When I review a derivative game, like say Dungeon Siege, I explain what games have come before it, and what the new game offers. I don’t take off marks just because it’s not a unique concept. If I did that there would be VERY FEW games that got high marks.

Yeah, first, the above post applies. Zuma is, itself, a rip. Please don’t think of Popcap as an original company.

Secondly, there HAVE been lawsuits like this — they got thrown out of court. Gameplay mechanics and ideas are not copyrightable. Art and music and writing is, but not the underpining.

Capcom vs Data East
http://www.davis.ca/community/blogs/video_games/archive/1994/03/18/341.aspx

There was a Japanese arcade game called “Puzz Loop” from 1998 that’s basically the exact same game, and predates Zuma and all the other clones. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a copy of something else earlier.

http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=P&game_id=9165

And frankly, I’ve got no problem with all the various clones in the casual game market. Is the hardcore market any different? Grab any 30 first person shooters or real time strategy titles and I’ll bet that 29 of them are the same damn game. But every now and then somebody will come along and really bring something new to the field…that everybody else will then mimic.

Also, I’m not sure that we’d see any difference in that fantasy world you mentioned. I’d bet a lot of developers are perfectly happy making duplicate games. Maybe it’s a learning exercise. Maybe they don’t have any ideas but still want to say that they “make games.” Maybe it’s just a hobby, the way some people knit perfectly functional sweaters. SOMETHING’s got to explain all those damnable free Tetris, Breakout, and Bejewelled clones.

We as critics have also responded – we complain about derivativeness. And we are rightfully ignored, because we too can’t offer an idea how to make a non-derivative game that sells.

Ultimately, the consumers decide. And they vote overwhelmingly to play regurgitated material. As a developer, all I can do here is shrug and go back to making Hydro Carnage Rumble Thunder 15. At least if I’m interested in a paycheck.

You are correct that copyright does not cover ideas. Copyright covers the expression of an idea. What the “expression” of the idea is in a game context is not entirely clear.

For instance, that “shoot balls at a other objects, which disappear when three or more of the same color match” is an idea, and is not copyrightable. But looking at (for example) Luxor and Atlantis side by side, there are a ton of decisions that the earlier game made that are NOT simply ideas:

-the colors of the balls are the same.
-the textures on the balls are similar.
-the balls are the same size (imagine how different the game would look if the balls were, say, pea sized)
-the look of the channel is similar.
-the speed at which the balls move is similar (including the way they slow down when they reach the goal)
-the physics of the balls are similar (and it is not at all obvious that they “must” be.)

To give you an example by analogy: If I took the text of Harry Potter and ran a search and replace to change the names and make the locale a school for priests and priestesses in Egypt rather than wizards and wizards in Scotland, J.K. Rowling would still be able to argue that I infringed her copyright, because there would still be thousands of little choices that she made in how to express her idea that subsisted in the resulting product. I think the same sorts of things happen when casual game makers copy from each other and just change the “theme”.

I’m not saying I think Mumbo-Jumbo (or Popcap) should sue. That would be irritating. I’m just saying that at some point, sooner or later, someone IS going to sue over something like this.

All of that being said, I think the legal question is not actually that interesting, and it will work itself out by itself without any help from me. What I find really interesting is the question of how we, as consumers (and critics) should be reacting to the glut of games that are not merely inspired by others, but are, more or less, direct copies of each other.

That this happens in the small game space and is therefore sucking up the resources of developers who, in my fantasy world where they don’t need to get paid, would be making new and different games is one of my concerns.

Thankfully, the copyright law hasn’t been diluted *that* much.