Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Protestors Rally Against 'Candy Crush Saga' Developer with Deluge of Candy-Themed Games
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Keep in mind every single game including candy crush is a ripoff of other games....
Have you seen their newest? It's a complete copy of peggle.
Have you seen their newest? It's a complete copy of peggle.
True... I think they should get a trademark for a specific "genre" of games and not just "games" in general... But, again you will find a lot of freeloaders everywhere... It is a very difficult choice to make...
When my kids were young, we played a board game called Candyland. Stupid but fun.Sour Grapes?
I always wondered about that ... how did Candy Crush get away with being an obvious clone of Bejeweled?
Sometimes, sometimes... most of the time I'm quite happy.You're one angry Scotsman.
----------
Because it's candy. Not jewels. There's a big difference, apparently. Stupid developer...
It's amusing really when you consider that all of Kings "saga" games are just candy crush but with fruit, dogs etc in place of candy. Like literally. They are the same game with different art.
At least the Temple Run stuff is only 'the same' because it's a front runner that uses swipe controls. On a touchscreen device it's hard not to 'copy' that. The developers mix it up in terms of how the runs go.
...until someone decides to start sending "cease and desist" or "take-down" letters to folks using the word "candy" (ahem...I'm looking at you, Apple!).
I don't understand why there isn't more outrage from the fanboys on this forum directed towards Apple for aiding King in this. It's one thing to uphold a game developer's right to protect his/her brand... but it's another thing to throw out common sense and just blindy assist King in a trademark claim that is ridiculous.
Apple has defended app developers rightfully in the past (I can't remember the exact details, but they did try to help developers that were being sued for infringing on some patent troll's claim in IAP I think), even when other company's have attempted to extort money from developers.
But in this case... Apple really should not be aiding King and should rightfully be criticized for it.
Yeah, looking into this more I don't think it's going to last. King have the trademark (in th UK/EU) at least, so Apple isn't being unfair in enforcing it. However the trademark in this case was purchased, not applied for and registered in the usual way, so King never had to demonstrate that it was a valid mark. It appears King do not sell anything under a 'Candy' brand - their mark is 'Candy Crush Saga', no more no less (and they have registered exactly that in the UK). Therefore anyone willing to risk £200 could apply to have the trademark revoked due to non-use. I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't predict the outcome, but common sense suggests it ought to win easily.
someone should just get Bejeweled to go after them. you cant just change the graphics and call it yours. you cant make pacman square with all white ghosts and call it yours or make a mario game with purple goombas and turtles with hats go yea its my new game check out the graphics. Bejeweled needs to be the one to protect their ip.
Do wuh? The word "saga" comes from old Norse tales of Viking daring-do or something like.
You mean who Candy Crush Saga basically lifted the Candyland board for its 'menu'
On the name front King only has a trademark on Candy for video games which I don't believe Candyland has, yet. But yes it would be interesting.
Or how about when they try to sue Warner Bros over things like "Lego Star Wars: the Complete Saga"
I was being facetious but honestly most British people associate the word saga with this:
http://www.saga.co.uk
Does anyone even play candy crush? Im not trying to be facetious either, I guess I just prefer a little bit more depth to my games.
You might want to check out the highest grossing app charts in the App Store (or Play Store, depending on what you are using).
Meh, I guess it doesn't take much to satisfy some.
One of the reasons why this type games are popular (Disney's Frozen: Free Fall, which seems to be doing quite well in the app store, is another identical clone and there are plenty more to find... cloning games seems to be fine these days....) - at least IMHO - is that they are ideal for playing on the go, giving you one level at a time - it seems to feed the "one more level!"-instinct... and clear goals - make it to the next level.
I believe in free choice (I understand why Apple censors certain themes in the App Store even though I'd prefer them not to do it), but these games really show the massive money milking machine that companies have turned In-App-Purchases to. Like pretty much any other game in the top 30 or 40 or so I tried Candy Crush Saga myself and eventually you will end up at levels where it will become necessary to buy extras if you don't want to get stuck at a level for days or weeks, it's the way they have been designed and the coincidence of being able to solve that level with "pure luck" and no further help is almost zero. I delete any apps that work this way, but it's obvious that a lot of people are spending money to progress in the game. Sure, it's a conscious decision that they are making, they think their cash is worth advancing one more level in a "match three game"
, but really I think that it's getting completely out of hand, it's ****ing up the app store and future apps as companies seem to be jumping on the IAP-train more and more too.I'm probably old fashioned but I like IAPs for additional content like extra loops in Garage Band or even level packs for games. It's definitely a questionable practice to offer a free game which eventually will require money to be playable.
Protestors Rally Against 'Candy Crush Saga' Developer with Deluge of Candy-Th...
I'm typing on the go but I pretty much agree with everything you posted. If it's not an additional map pack or extra content to the game why would I pay for something that I can accomplish for free? Yea that just baffles me.
One of the reasons why this type games are popular (Disney's Frozen: Free Fall, which seems to be doing quite well in the app store, is another identical clone and there are plenty more to find... cloning games seems to be fine these days....) - at least IMHO - is that they are ideal for playing on the go, giving you one level at a time - it seems to feed the "one more level!"-instinct... and clear goals - make it to the next level.
I believe in free choice (I understand why Apple censors certain themes in the App Store even though I'd prefer them not to do it), but these games really show the massive money milking machine that companies have turned In-App-Purchases to. Like pretty much any other game in the top 30 or 40 or so I tried Candy Crush Saga myself and eventually you will end up at levels where it will become necessary to buy extras if you don't want to get stuck at a level for days or weeks, it's the way they have been designed and the coincidence of being able to solve that level with "pure luck" and no further help is almost zero. I delete any apps that work this way, but it's obvious that a lot of people are spending money to progress in the game. Sure, it's a conscious decision that they are making, they think their cash is worth advancing one more level in a "match three game"
I'm probably old fashioned but I like IAPs for additional content like extra loops in Garage Band or even level packs for games. It's definitely a questionable practice to offer a free game which eventually will require money to be playable.
I'm typing on the go but I pretty much agree with everything you posted. If it's not an additional map pack or extra content to the game why would I pay for something that I can accomplish for free? Yea that just baffles me.
I won't buy in-app anything. If everyone followed suit, they'd stop making these money-milking games. Besides, if you have to cheat to get past a level, you didn't win anyway so WTF is the point? And if the game is so hard you can't win without the cheats then it's obviously just designed to free you of the money in your bank account and not about a quality game in the first place and so you'd have to be addicted or not mind spending hundreds of dollars on a cheap-arse POS game. Sorry, but Diablo 3 isn't worth $60 to me to play, let alone some stupid puzzle game and Diablo 3 tries to mine you for money along the way too by not giving out quality weapons and so "encouraging" you to buy them with real money at their auction house store thingy. Sorry, but that means the game is a POS money-making grub machine, not a real quality made game. Thus, I refuse to buy it (notice how you can't play offline either; another sign of money grubbing).
Oh how I hate that game. My sister has spent over $20 (probably low compared to what some have spent) on that game because like some have said, you simply can't beat some levels without it. Ponzi scheme is right.