Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I find Survived By a game with awasome potential but i cant shake the feelin that i have already see all this in the game "realm of mad god", isometric vision, bullethell survival aspect, hub city with portals, random quests and random dungeons...its a bit too samy and i cant find why i would stick with this game until now.

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh not this argument again... why do people always call something that is similar a friggin' "Rip Off..."

look dude, I don't know why you would make a post like that but hear me out... a rip off is something that uses asset flips, which means that it use assets and mechanics that are straight up taken from another game with absolutely NO variation whatsoever, Survived By uses its own assets and its own takes on similar mechanics to Rotmg, it doesn't literally "rip off" things out of Rotmg, but takes inspiration from it.

Plus it's funny that you call Survived By a rip off because Rotmg uses pre-made bought assets from a store online, the studio didn't make its own assets they simply bought it, so by your definition Rotmg is a rip-off too

hope you learn something out of this... next time try to look for a proper definition before making uniformed posts like these

anyway have a great day, cheers !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody can own Gameplay mechanics, and nobody can own a genre neither, just search for the lawsuit from PUBG to Fortnite and you will see how ridiculous it was, and it was a similar argument, "this game is also based upon these mechanics, which identify this game, therefore it is a rip off and is illegal", imagine Doom or one of those old fps games suing all fps games nowadays because they shoot bullets against enemies

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Edge said:

Nobody can own Gameplay mechanics, and nobody can own a genre neither, just search for the lawsuit from PUBG to Fortnite and you will see how ridiculous it was, and it was a similar argument, "this game is also based upon these mechanics, which identify this game, therefore it is a rip off and is illegal", imagine Doom or one of those old fps games suing all fps games nowadays because they shoot bullets against enemies

just imagining id Software suing EVERY studios that make FPS game ever makes me laugh, "we fear that [insert game name here] is trying to recreate the experience that DOOM is know for."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 10:44 PM, Edge said:

just search for the lawsuit from PUBG to Fortnite and you will see how ridiculous it was

To be fair, the makers of Bejeweled (Released in 2001) were sued by the makers of Candy Crush (Released in 2012) for copying their game-play - And they WON.

It doesn't matter who came first, or whose copying who - It just matters whose more recognized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Reelix said:

It doesn't matter who came first, or whose copying who - It just matters whose more recognized.

I don't see Pubg winning lawsuits, not even with the chinese clones

"The Idea-Expression Dichotomy

Here’s where it gets a little unintuitive. Copyright protects the expressions of ideas, but it doesn’t protect the ideas themselves. This concept is called the idea-expression dichotomy, and it makes a distinction between an expression or manifestation of an idea and the underlying idea itself.

"Popcap released Bejeweled back in 2001, when the earth was young and life was simple. King releases Candy Crush Saga in 2012, and it looks and plays an awful lot like Bejeweled. But both Bejeweled and Candy Crush Saga are simply two different expressions of the idea of a “match three things” game. In fact, Bejeweled is itself a new expression of the “match-three” idea behind Shariki, a DOS game released in 1994. So in this situation, unless King actually copied the particular expressions that Popcap used in their game (e.g., the artwork, background music, or sound effects), King is free to make their own expression of the idea of a “match three things” game. (Note: There are some instances where a court may find infringement beyond this kind of literal copying, but for simplicity’s sake I’ll reserve discussion of that topic for next time.)"

https://geeklawjournal.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/candy-crush-saga-bejeweled-and-why-game-clones-are-a-thing/

King didn't sue Popcap because of Bejeweled, they sued the creator of Candy Swipe, a game from 2010, you can google if you want, and he decided to quit, he declared (who knows why) that King won the battle, but that wasn't because a Judge ruled that Candy Swipe was a clone of Candy Crush, it was because he himself decided to quit, it's a shame, he may have won the lawsuit.

I mean, you may have some cases of corruption with huge companies, but it's not the norm, at least in the USA judicial system, just look at Apple and all the lawsuits they had lost, and you can't get much bigger than Apple

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×