Capcom Mobile copies 'Splosion Man... poorly
polycounter lvl 11
A level from Twisted Pixel's 'Splosion Man: (2009)
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Sz_HQIpt0[/ame]
A level from Capcom Mobile's MaXplosion: (2011)
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOWlwo9dXh8[/ame]
This is atrocious.
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Sz_HQIpt0[/ame]A level from Capcom Mobile's MaXplosion: (2011)
[ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOWlwo9dXh8[/ame]This is atrocious.
Replies
If true then...awkward :poly122:
I still love you.
But i'm not so sure about your mobile division.
Twisted Pixel's CEO calls it "Complete Theft"
http://www.ripten.com/2011/01/12/splosion-mans-developer-calls-mauler/
Probably capcom mobile just signing some cheap dev that enjoys copying games, and people at capcom mobile were clueless enough to let it pass.
Eh, as much as I'd like to think that, I think you're giving them far too much credit. I have a hard time believing anyone in that position would be *that* clueless.
I can actually see this happening. Some High ups at game companies aren't as vigilant as you might think.
Yep, it's a bit of a shameless business, lots of money-grabs and ripoffs, And the true gems have to suffer, because they're sharing space with a crapton of bad software.
i guess it would look something a bit like...
[ame]
hrmmm...maybe want....maybe....want.
http://kotaku.com/5732370/meet-the-least-imaginative-video-games-in-the-world
I had to post this response:
Just because the company that made the original hasn't ported their game over doesn't make the act of making a completely derivative clone any more morally defensible. If a game company was making a blatant ripoff of Uncharted for HD systems, would it suddenly become a more respectable thing if they were 360 exclusive? No, clearly not.
What you're tapping into is this entitlement mentality where the modern consumer feels like they have the right to determine when and where they can get a product, rather the company producing it. See: fanboys raging over franchises that switch systems allegiance. This is NOT a healthy mentality to foster. As a hypothetical, no matter how much you enjoy Gears of War it doesn't mean you deserve the option to play it on your PS3, or iPhone, or Android, or Wii, or toaster oven.
Drug dealers fill a void too. Filling a void isn't a noble thing in and of itself.
I laughed when I saw 'Near Orbit Vanguard Alliance', that's a terrible name, 'Gameloft' is pretty bad too.
I disagree completely and saying that they're wrong isn't going to change anything. It's you against millions of people. Who do you think has more collective time and resources? To call a video game, which is just an arrangement of 1's and 0's a product, means you're committing a misnomer. A video game is no more a product than calculus. They are both a collection of executed ideas, but neither is a product. The disc, on the other hand, is a product. It's made of finite, scarce resources that are required to produce it.
The reigning issue here is that those that create believe they are being cheated out of income because people can download and copy the works they create without compensating them for it. The commonly used argument is that they just want it for free and they have some sort of unrealistic entitlement complex. The first part may be true, but the second is not. The reason being is that those whom download have come to realize what many among the file-sharing community have come to realize: Copies are not worth the media they're stored on. Now, I'm not saying that artists don't work hard to make the games nor am I saying they don't deserve to be paid. It's that they're selling the wrong good entirely and don't realize what business they are really in.
Games are a service industry, they find people that want games made and then get paid to make them. It's much like a contractor who finds clients that want something built. They're not selling a building, but they are selling their time, effort, and skill to build them. What needs to change is who is paying for those games to be made. The publishers hire developers to make these games and then sell the copies for profit. That just doesn't work anymore and the pervasive file-sharing culture outlines that in spades. So what does one do? Well, finding other ways to make money from games that doesn't involve selling copies would be a good start. Companies like ZeroPoint Software are selling exclusivity and other perks to raise funding to make their games. There's tiered support that gives increasingly better perks as the amount given increases. Selling exclusive products and services is another.
The point of these methods is to get people very hyped up about the game in development and get them to buy the supporting products/services that keep the business going. It works too. XKCD makes comics that are posted for free on the website and they let anyone and everyone copy and redistribute them. Even with that, they've successfully made money selling the printed version of the collection and other related goods. ZeroPoint's Interstellar Marines is developed under their AAA indie initiative where people buy "support" badges that upgrade their status as a member of the community and have behind the scenes access to the development of the game and the community gets to decide what games they want made, instead of the publisher. This gives the developers the power to make games for their target audience rather than telling their target audience what games will be made for them.
The reason people are downloading a game for the purpose of playing them on other platforms is because they feel cheated that they have to buy a game twice. Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter. What does matter is that there are under-served customers out there that are trying to get what isn't being offered to them. It would appear that customers want games that can be played on more than one platform or they simply don't like the monopoly fostering nature of game console design.
Edit:
The great thing about this, is that this way the developers get paid, the fans get their games, and nobody feels cheated.
Is it off topic? No more than Zack's comment. Is off the mark? Not by a long shot.
so steam , PSN, XBL are just some ideas' store? O.o...
Just because you can say something, doesn't make it fact. The games industry is making billions of dollars by selling games, either retail or digital download. I'm pretty sure it actually *does* work.
So, he's talking about people demanding that when they buy a copy of a game, they should be able to use it on any platform they choose? Well, I still disagree. Music can be transferred to many different platforms (PC, Mobile phone, iPod, etc.). It's not unreasonable in this era to see that they would think that considering other media, they can do as such. I don't need an MP3 player device to listen to MP3's and I don't have to be limited to one format either.
Just because I say so? You're telling me that nobody can download a game, instead of buying it from the publishers? Publishers have an actual, unbreakable monopoly on access to the works they sell? Well then, I was mistaken.
"Just because I say so" is not what makes it true. The fact that people can and do distribute copies of all types of media proves that the way of things as they were, are not going to last. It's just getting started. People are only just starting to realize that they don't have to pay for copies. Given time, this will idea will spread.
EzMeow:
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they were simply ideas. I said they are a collection of executed ideas, but no more tangible than when they were just ideas. You have to realize, those stores are selling an infinite product. No matter how many they sell, there will always be more. That was the point I was trying to to make. Can you put a price on a infinite product? Anybody who understands supply and demand would say no. You need a limited supply and people who demand it for it to have a price. An infinite supply means that there's no demand because everyone can have it and the supply isn't exhausted.
And no, you're still missing my original point and going off on a tangent. I was referring to the way that people think that they have the right to dictate what platforms a game gets released on, like "PS3 players deserve to get to play Valve games too" or "360 players deserve to get Metal Gear Solid too" and on and on, which is directly analogous to the idea that people gaming on mobile platforms have some sort of God-given right to mobile phone versions of popular franchises. Which is what the Gameloft guy was using to legitimize their modus operandi.
Neither piracy nor having to pay for multiple ports of the same game are directly related topics.
I'm not in the industry yet, but I spent 4 years learning what goes into making a game, including consoles. It takes 1,000's of man hours to create a game design document, storyboards, programming, art, design environments, and do testing on a AAA game. It's also difficult to port a game from one platform to another because the console makers made a lot of effort so that specifically are incompatible. That way, they can sell those ridiculously over-priced development kits. These systems are wholly incompatible with each other and require separate development teams to produce a game for each platform. Do I have it about right?
And why shouldn't the customers that buy the games have a say in what platforms they get it on? It's their money and they can take it elsewhere if you won't provide it.
Dude, not even close.
Really? You can dev a 360 game on a PS3 kit? That was my point.
True. But the mere fact that neither are compatible does add to the issue that it's hard to port games to other platforms. MS doesn't want the PS3 SDK to create 360 games and vice versa. It's a colossal pain in the ass to make a game for three consoles and Windows, but it doesn't have to be. Actually, if the PS3 and the 360 could run each other's games, that would be big for the consumer. Consumers want cross-platform compatibility. Why deny them what they're willing to pay for? Oh wait, because MS, Nintendo, and Sony want their cut of your earnings.
Anyway, gameloft has always been a shady bunch of dudes to me. I'm surprised they haven't been beaten by the lawsuit stick yet... certainly there should be a case right?
EDIT: About Capcom tho, I dunno what to say about it really.
Whatever.
I hate reading a wall of text only to find out I've been reading the literary equivalent of dribble.
Ignore list is there for a reason!
Now that's logic that makes sense to me. Ignore function FTW!!
That was funny to see all those side by side.
The only one that felt weird though is the Starcraft/Starfront comparison. Not because it's off-mark, but because nobody ever seems to give Blizzard a hard time for a title that's basically a rehash of Warhammer.
That their humans are basically War40k's Space Marines, their Zerg are essentially the same as the Tyranids, and Protoss are a combination of Tau/Eldars, all seems to go under the radar.
Warcraft I think is better done. The Orcs aren't directly the Warhammer Orks, but more like a generic combination of fantasy Orc, with a bit of Klingon mixed in. Their Elves actually feel unique, with the druids and whatnot, etc. But Starcraft is a pretty clear parallel to War40k.
I'm primarily a PC gamer, and there's a bunch of cool psn games I fancy but can't play. Frankly, I'd love someone to do a good pixeljunk shooter ripoff.. or, something inspired but with a slightly different flavour. Either..
As long as it isn't a *shitty* ripoff, which this capcom thing looks like. Imo, if the market is there and someone's ignoring it, it's their own fault when someone else comes along and plonks their own version down. Having said that it's likely more Microsoft's fault than it is Twisted Pixel due to some exclusivity contract, but whatever, they still signed it.