No, this isn't a joke or an April Fool released early, even Forbes is talking about it.
Now I have to say I'm not really surprised, or even particularly annoyed, by this move. Oh, it's ridiculous, don't get me wrong, and so shady it may as well have been taken right out of the corporate play book of EA or Microsoft (at least, recently!) in terms of sleazily throwing your weight around. But I get it. I understand the desire to want to protect your product, even over-zealously, especially in the budding, still developing world of IOS and Facebook gaming. As long as we allow companies to make moves like this (and in this case, by 'we' I mean the trademark offices of the world) they will, and ultimately I take the rather optimistic stance that it'll sort itself out and common sense will come to rule in the end.
It's going to be a tough process getting there, and my heart goes out to those who get screwed over in the process, but as the indie developer interviewed in the gamezbo article noted - He also discovered that he can't use 'Memory' in his game title on IOS either. There's only going to be so many of these silly, suggestive trademarks that Apple can help large developers enforce before the IOS store becomes untenable for most smaller developers and they go elsewhere. This may not be a problem for the platform in the short term, but considering most of the big guns of casual game development rose up the ranks off the back of one big game that happened to catch fire with the public and became popular, what's going to happen when the big games on their devices get tired and stale and they've scared off the new blood to replace it?
I'd hope it wouldn't get to that point, and King would reign it in, but that confrontational title up there? It isn't up there for nothing. While the trademarking of Candy doesn't get under my skin another word that they've set their sights on trademarking has. That word is 'Saga', and not only that but they've already started to come down hard on developers daring to use it. The reason I find this far more repulsive and despicable than the trademarking of 'Candy' is at least, when it comes to that, I can see where they're coming from. Just typing 'candy' into the Google Play app store gets you this:
But saga? King's spokesperson makes the point that the word saga is integral to their branding, as it ties their products together, and something they need to protect even if it means going to draconian measures to do so but... I'm sorry. That's just a big pile of corporate BS and I, for one, am not buying into it. Nobody refers to Candy Crush as Candy Crush Saga outside of advertising and quite frankly, it sounds awkward and clunky when you do. There's a recent advertisement for the new features on Amazon's Kindle device, where the woman manning Kindles virtual help station admits to a 'Candy Crush Saga addiction' and that extra word there just sounds wrong. It takes away from the snappiness of the title, and feels tacked on and unnecessary because frankly, it is. It's why I chose not to include the 'Saga' on any of the titles I listed above, because the only one it suits is 'Pet Rescue Saga' and even then just plain old 'Pet Rescue' works as well, if not better. It's not what the people who play it refer to it as, and as an attempt to form some cohesive brand between their games it's as naked and transparent as they come. The only thing King's games have in common is they take gaming formulas that are old as dirt and put a new sheen and polish on them, beyond that their catalogue just reads like the back cover of one of those collections of '1001 PC Games!' you can pick up in any supermarket across the country.
But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe there is some justification here I'm just not seeing. Maybe the saga at the end of King's games is not related to them seeing their game library as a whole as a saga, but that each individual game is a saga in it's own right. Okay, let's break out the Oxford English dictionary and grab some definitions;
Saga
Noun
a long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic:a figure straight out of a Viking saga
Okay, a complete strike out on that one. Let's try another!
a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents:launching into the saga of her engagement
I suppose one could argue that King's games are indeed a long series of incidents, but you're floundering in pretty shallow water there. Especially when the Banner Saga? A game that is inspired directly by Viking Saga's of old, has a much stronger claim on the word than they will ever have. In fact, every story based game with a long, winding narrative would have a stronger claim on that word than they would. Trademarking 'candy' in the video game industry isn't disastrous because I don't think there's a game out there that can't just swap out the chocolate and marshmallows for something else and still be fine and when it comes to names? Just call it 'Sweet Shop Crush' and you're probably good. But trying to trademark the word 'Saga' in an entertainment media is like trying to trademark the word 'Fable' or 'Folktale' or 'Parable' or even just 'Story' itself. Stories and narrative are one of the very core features of games development, yes you can just as easily change the title of your game to 'The Banner Fairy Tale' as you can take candy out of a name, but you shouldn't have too. When you exist in a storytelling medium these words should be as free to you as the words apple and persimmon should be to a grocer.
Imagine if Pixar tried to trademark the term story off the back of their Toy Story movies. The idea is simply monstrous, and the idea that King could potentially drag a small indie developer like Stoic (a three man team who had to Kickstart their game, I might add!) to court over this, or would even dare stand in their way over something as absolutely insane as trying to trademark a synonym for story, the one thing King's games do not and never will have, is just as barbaric in my mind.
A lot of this brings to mind another casual game company that actively managed to sleaze itself out of business, Zynga. Zynga were the minds behind Farmville, a few casino games adapted for Facebook and the App store as well as Dream Heights. That last one, by the way, was mired in controversy as it turned out to be a blatant copy of a game from another company Zynga had attempted to buy. The big names of the game industry employing underhand tactics to an absurd degree isn't news, but I'm starting to wonder - Is there something inherently rotten in the make up of these casual games markets that give the companies that emerge on top of them the impression that this kind of thing is more okay than most? Mobile and facebook games are, afterall, an extremely derivative sub-section of the already highly derivative business of gaming as a whole. Almost all of Rovio's Angry Birds franchise (including spin off's such as Bad Piggies) are essentially flash games or older IOS games with a better art design. Candy Crush itself is just the good old match three formula with a lick of paint and a more questionable use of incentive systems to keep you clicking those candies. Even Doctor Who Legacy, a game I have been really enjoying of late, could draw unfavourable comparisons to Puzzle Quest. Although I would like to add, the developers of that game are incredibly customer friendly and seem quite genuine about the love of their product, which is always nice to see.
One has to wonder, does this paranoia of copycat games and other companies riding to glory off the back of their hard work feed directly into their corporate culture when they grow to become the big fish of their respective pond? Do they feel like they need to work harder not only to protect what they feel is their own, but also to beg, borrow and steal as much as possible so that they can produce the next big hit to capture their audience once the novelty has worn off and everyone grows tired of their last one? I can't imagine that there is as much brand loyalty in the casual fanbase as there is in other areas of the gaming market. It's like asking somebody who only watches films from time to time who their favourite director is, most people don't pay attention to that kind of thing, they just like the kind of films they like and don't pay much heed to what's going on behind the camera. King and co. aim for this kind of market, the one that isn't interested in the mechanics of gaming or that companies behind it, but just wants something fun and addictive to play on their lunch break. Perhaps that also plays into why they think they can get away with these kinds of shenanigans, their fans will probably never hear of it and never think less of them in any case, because they don't care. They don't read gaming websites, don't buy gaming magazines, aren't connected to the industry in the way people who invest more time into gaming are.
Or, much more likely, there's nothing intrinsically special about the casual gaming market and this is just another example of a large corporation pushing the boundaries of what it can and can't get away with, simply because it can afford too. I can only hope that King, like Zynga before them, push too far and wind up out of business, because frankly? This whole affair has left a rather sour taste in my mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment