Jump to content

25 posts in this topic

Posted

When you have an intellectual property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Isn't there an argument to be made that if you decide to use a common, everyday word then you run the risk of others piggybacking off of your success? Don't want someone to vamp your cred? Don't choose to name your company after a common thing. Don't call your company Flower, genius. Call it Flowerescent! A made up word you can freely patent.

 

Or they could do like that game show where they say the word candy and see how many people responded with "crush"; essentially word association. If enough people do, you get the patent, if they don't you don't. Every few years you have to redo the test, if your thing is no longer associated with the word, you lose your patent  :laugh:  :rofl:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The trademark system is broken.

 

Nothing new there.

 

If only Bejeweled had the trademark on match type 3 and crushed them :whistle:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Meh, this is stupid, Candy Crush should be thrown out for not being a game. 

 

a game should allow you to get better and you get better skills, not the case with candy crush, it's all luck and random. a game should ALWAYS be possible to beat. not the case with candy crush, levels aren't pre calculated to always be beatable. 

 

Candy crush isn't a game, it's like going to Vegas and playing one armed bandits, only there's no prices, only you paying them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

another dumb trademark.  Shouldnt be able to protect common words.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Here in NZ coke came out with a drink call LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Meh, this is stupid, Candy Crush should be thrown out for not being a game. 

 

a game should allow you to get better and you get better skills, not the case with candy crush, it's all luck and random. a game should ALWAYS be possible to beat. not the case with candy crush, levels aren't pre calculated to always be beatable. 

 

Candy crush isn't a game, it's like going to Vegas and playing one armed bandits, only there's no prices, only you paying them. 

 

It is a game, but a game designed to frustrate you to do buy microtransactions. 

For what the game is designed to do, it's rather effective at it. 

Think about how much money the game is generating when they have frequent tv commercials for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It is a game, but a game designed to frustrate you to do buy microtransactions. 

For what the game is designed to do, it's rather effective at it. 

Think about how much money the game is generating when they have frequent tv commercials for it.

 

I've never played CCS myself but a friend has explained it to me previously. Am I right in thinking you have to match 3 in so many moves, and it needs to be done in a particular order or you lose?

 

Bejeweled and other match type 3 games have similar modes and nobody has an issue with them. Only when you throw micro-transations in does it become an issue for people evidentally. That and having to bug people to get more attempts/lives/etc etc through social media. It's viral and for their benefit at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is just absurd.  The PTCO must be run by a bunch of idiots...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

someone should try and trademark crush ( as used in video games, board & card games, and plastic & stuffed figures )  , that would put a big bite into them on  expanding product lines . you can then send them nasty letters for using your trademark in there game title  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Can they really go after these games if they've existed longer than Candy Crush? Or before the trademark date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think Hasbro might not be amused at their shenanigans

 

vKmkbys.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think Hasbro might not be amused at their shenanigans

 

vKmkbys.jpg

 

Heh, I just thought the exact same thing. When I think of a "Candy" game I immediately think of Candy Land. Although, when I think of Candy Crush I think of Facebook (and the people I've deleted on it for inviting me to play Candy Crush, to be fair I give them two stern warnings).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

pogo had sweet tooth along time and also popcap games had a clone of some kind

 

pogo is owned by EA and they wont roll over very easily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've never played CCS myself but a friend has explained it to me previously. Am I right in thinking you have to match 3 in so many moves, and it needs to be done in a particular order or you lose?

 

Bejeweled and other match type 3 games have similar modes and nobody has an issue with them. Only when you throw micro-transations in does it become an issue for people evidentally. That and having to bug people to get more attempts/lives/etc etc through social media. It's viral and for their benefit at the end of the day.

 

It's a lot like the bejeweled, combine gems earn points, then it starts adding in more difficult.

ex. you have to pop candy over certain areas to clear a layer below the grid. 

 

You get a certain amount of tries before you run out. You have to wait or purchase go again now vs latter.

There's permanently unlock to give permanent x number of extra turns.

Other types of power ups / pseudo cheats you can pay for.

 

The levels before you transition zones seemed to brutally hard. 

They have the social network thing so you can see how far behind you are with your friends. 

 

It's a brilliantly designed seductive game.

I will give kudo's for the music score as well.

 

(edit)

Or if you watched the Penny Arcade, perfect example of a skinner box game Operant Conditionin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbtAn3dic-g

 

I don't play, but my wife does, she doesn't buy unlocks / purchases but can spend days, or a week stuck on one level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heh, I just thought the exact same thing. When I think of a "Candy" game I immediately think of Candy Land. Although, when I think of Candy Crush I think of Facebook (and the people I've deleted on it for inviting me to play Candy Crush, to be fair I give them two stern warnings).

 

People who delete or complain that their friends send game invites are amusing. FB has a function to simply block all game invites you know so you don't have to ever see them. except for the rare few games who breaks the FB TOS by sending game invites/requests as direct requests to friends. But you can block these to easily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I read today they are going after "banner saga" because it contains the word "saga" :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I read today they are going after "banner saga" because it contains the word "saga" :laugh:

 

Apparently they're going after ANY game with the word Saga... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've never played CCS myself but a friend has explained it to me previously. Am I right in thinking you have to match 3 in so many moves, and it needs to be done in a particular order or you lose?

CCS is designed to where generally the only way you will beat levels legitimately is if you get extremely lucky with pieces and board layout. Most of the time you will get to where you will need a couple moves, swap or break some candy to beat it. Therefore you're more inclined to say screw it and pay the $1 for some boosts to beat it when you're that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I read today they are going after "banner saga" because it contains the word "saga" :laugh:

Indeed.

 

The rumours surrounding King contesting the title The Banner Saga - over its use of the word "saga" - have been confirmed.
 
A firm "Notice of Opposition" has been filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office on behalf of King suggesting that "The Banner Saga mark is confusingly and deceptively similar to Opposer's previously used Saga Marks."
 
It further adds "The use and registration by Applicant of the mark The Banner Saga for Applicant's goods is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or deception in the trade, and among purchasers and potential purchasers, with Opposer's Saga Marks, again resulting in damage to Opposer."
 
Uh huh. The document fails to consider that one of these games is a turn-based strategy affair featuring Norse vikings while the other is a casual puzzler about using colourful sweets to battle less colourful sweets (i.e. chocolate). We're still awaiting comment from King on this one, while The Banner Saga developer Stoic Studios is keeping mum at the moment.

 

 

King sent a statement out to Eurogamer which can be read at the top of that article.

 

 

Guess this whole saga (no pun intended) reaffirms my belief that's projected ever so eloquently through this video...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeLTx-ZhlFQ

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

People who delete or complain that their friends send game invites are amusing. FB has a function to simply block all game invites you know so you don't have to ever see them. except for the rare few games who breaks the FB TOS by sending game invites/requests as direct requests to friends. But you can block these to easily. 

 

Invite me to play Candy Crush once, shame on me. Invite me to play Candy crush twice, shame on you. Invite me to play three times, delete you from existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

it's the office that issued that patent that's at fault here, how can a company patent a word like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 
King: We do not clone other people's games

By Brendan Sinclair

 

Fri 24 Jan 2014 7:49pm GMT / 2:49pm EST / 11:49am PST
 

Candy Crush company denies accusations but removes game in question "for the avoidance of doubt"

 

King has removed the game Pac-Avoid from its website after a developer accused the Candy Crush Saga company of basing it off his own game, Scamperghost.

 

"King does not clone other peoples' games," the publisher said in a statement. "King believes that IP - both our own IP and that of others - is important and should be properly protected. Like any prudent company, we take all appropriate steps to protect our IP in a sensible and fair way. At the same time, we are respectful of the rights and IP of other developers. Before we launch any game, we do a thorough search of other games in the marketplace, as well as a review of trademark filings, to ensure that we are not infringing anyone else's IP. However, for the avoidance of doubt, in this case, this game - which was coded by a third-party developer 5 years ago - has been taken down."

 

The cloning accusation was just the latest in a series of IP controversies for King this week. First came news of the company's recently filed EU trademark on the word "candy," a trademark it was enforcing against the developer of Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land. The publisher said it would not be enforcing its trademark against all uses of the word, just those it felt were infringing on its rights or in danger of confusing players.

 

Shortly after that news broke, King challenged a trademark filing by developer Stoic for the name of its debut game, The Banner Saga. In its challenge filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, King alleged that The Banner Saga was "confusingly and deceptively similar" to King's own use of Saga in its games. Following some outcry over that decision, King released a statement saying it was not trying to stop Stoic from using the Banner Saga name, but had to file a challenge or else it would have been easier for other companies to make illegitimate use of the word.

 

"This is an important issue for King because we already have a series of games where 'Saga' is key to the brand which our players associate with a King game; Candy Crush Saga, Bubble Witch Saga, Pet Rescue Saga, Farm Heroes Saga and so on," a representative said. "All of these titles have already faced substantive trademark and copyright issues with clones."

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-24-king-we-do-not-clone-other-peoples-games

 

 
So What is King's Contribution to the Games Industry, Anyway?

With King in the news over its ongoing trademark disputes, we take a look at its five most popular games so you don't have to.

 

By Pete Davison.

 

King's been in the news a lot recently, largely due to its attempts to claim ownership over the "Candy" trademark and, subsequently, accusations of cloning

 

Prior to this, if you're not big into the world of free-to-play social and mobile games, you may have only had a passing familiarity with King through mentions of Candy Crush Saga -- or, indeed, the advertising for said game that's been plastered everywhere. And yet King is one of the biggest names in free-to-play social gaming right now -- Candy Crush Saga alone attracts over 150 million players every month as the top-ranked game on Facebook, and its other titles also ride high in the charts. 

 

So who are King, why should we care about them, and exactly what have they given to the games industry as a whole? Well, before we get on to their top five games, it's important to at least acknowledge one thing: like their precursor Zynga, King has done a lot to make the concept of video games an accessible and desirable pastime for a much broader spectrum of people, including those who would never consider purchasing a piece of dedicated gaming hardware. King's games aren't "by gamers, for gamers" as the old clich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Indeed.

 

 

King sent a statement out to Eurogamer which can be read at the top of that article.

 

 

Guess this whole saga (no pun intended) reaffirms my belief that's projected ever so eloquently through this video...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeLTx-ZhlFQ

 

That is hilarious!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.