On March 06 2024 21:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I must acknowledge that my wife and I were also able to tap into many of these same resources by claiming my wife owns and runs a company where in reality I own and operate. My wife is just a figurehead and it gets us free money from the stupid Canadian government because on paper my wife is a "woman entrepreneur".
I make and sell a report writer add-on tool; I made the original version in 2009. it is used primarily by actuarial firms. In its next iteration I am adding some re-enforcement learning capabilities. I am considering calling it a new product that is used for video game companies to construct analytics on the habits of their player base. So this is a product made by a "video game company".This way, I can get the same "stack" of subsidies Sweet Baby Inc got. The current version of my report writer is used by 1 video game company so I can probably pull this off. About 25% of my family still lives in Quebec. If I hit the "tri fecta" and get all 3 subsidies I'll post it here.
On March 06 2024 21:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I must acknowledge that my wife and I were also able to tap into many of these same resources by claiming my wife owns and runs a company where in reality I own and operate. My wife is just a figurehead and it gets us free money from the stupid Canadian government because on paper my wife is a "woman entrepreneur".
I make and sell a report writer add-on tool; I made the original version in 2009. it is used primarily by actuarial firms. In its next iteration I am adding some re-enforcement learning capabilities. I am considering calling it a new product that is used for video game companies to construct analytics on the habits of their player base. So this is a product made by a "video game company".This way, I can get the same "stack" of subsidies Sweet Baby Inc got. The current version of my report writer is used by 1 video game company so I can probably pull this off. About 25% of my family still lives in Quebec. If I hit the "tri fecta" and get all 3 subsidies I'll post it here.
Why are you posting about fraud plans online?
If I follow their guidelines and requirements it is not fraud. Any amount of money I get will be a small fraction of what hte Quebec government gives away to far too many people in the video game sector. If this exposes the Quebec government for its corruption, negligence and antisemitism.. then so be it.
We can continue the discussion of antisemitism in Quebec in the Canadian politics thread if you wish.
If you're wondering how Gearbox Quebec can produce such garbage as "New Tales of The BOrderlands" and continue to exist.. its due to Quebec government subsidies. Why would a company, Gearbox, founded and operating in Texas for decades expand to Quebec some 87,000,000 km from Texas? Quebec government subsidies.
On February 29 2024 23:17 schaf wrote: And isn't this related to a huge expansion during Covid? I imagine that gaming and esports had a huge surge during that time.
I personally doubt it, there’s bound to be some crossover and knock-on but I consider that more an issue afflicting general tech companies.
Tech companies mostly hired folks to capitalise on an explosion in demand on existing products that was somewhat artificially inflated by Covid. Whereas in gaming, sure some areas may get a boost but development cycles are too long and expensive that you can only temporarily pivot so much to make that hay while the sun shines.
I think what you’re seeing is just the general direction of travel in the gaming industry that precedes Covid and has continued henceforth. Fewer, more lucrative mega titles that make Scrooge McDuck levels of bank, rather than a bunch of merely profitable titles. And you just need less
There are some exceptions here I think Epic genuinely did expand rather a lot and put their fingers in too many pies these last few years and got somewhat burned. Embracer shit the bed by expanding based on investment they just assumed was in the bag and wasn’t, and then had to make cuts for that idiotic mistake.
I mean to look at ActiBlizz they put SC2 and Heroes into maintenance mode long ago, they went barebones and delivered a travesty of a WC3 remaster, and they clearly cut corners on Overwatch 2 considering they dropped the main selling point of that ‘sequel’. Or Konami basically refusing to release new games despite having many a beloved IP.
I mean it would be daft to make out that Covid had no effect of course, but I don’t think it’s the main reason we’re seeing these industry layoffs.
I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
On March 06 2024 21:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I must acknowledge that my wife and I were also able to tap into many of these same resources by claiming my wife owns and runs a company where in reality I own and operate. My wife is just a figurehead and it gets us free money from the stupid Canadian government because on paper my wife is a "woman entrepreneur".
I make and sell a report writer add-on tool; I made the original version in 2009. it is used primarily by actuarial firms. In its next iteration I am adding some re-enforcement learning capabilities. I am considering calling it a new product that is used for video game companies to construct analytics on the habits of their player base. So this is a product made by a "video game company".This way, I can get the same "stack" of subsidies Sweet Baby Inc got. The current version of my report writer is used by 1 video game company so I can probably pull this off. About 25% of my family still lives in Quebec. If I hit the "tri fecta" and get all 3 subsidies I'll post it here.
Why are you posting about fraud plans online?
If I follow their guidelines and requirements it is not fraud. Any amount of money I get will be a small fraction of what hte Quebec government gives away to far too many people in the video game sector. If this exposes the Quebec government for its corruption, negligence and antisemitism.. then so be it.
Alright, I'll revise it. Maybe don't post online about fraud you claim to have committed.
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
There is also the secondary problem that at some companies, the goal of game design is not to make a fun game. It is to make a game that extracts the maximum amount of money from its victims. For that, the game needs to be fun enough to get people in, or at least look fun enough. But then it needs to be slightly less fun, with the constant promise of being more fun if you spend more money.
There is a reason that i haven't engaged with AAA titles in some years now. Indie games usually make more money if they are really awesome and get people to recommend them to other people, so in that case design goals and my goals align.
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
There is also the secondary problem that at some companies, the goal of game design is not to make a fun game. It is to make a game that extracts the maximum amount of money from its victims. For that, the game needs to be fun enough to get people in, or at least look fun enough. But then it needs to be slightly less fun, with the constant promise of being more fun if you spend more money.
There is a reason that i haven't engaged with AAA titles in some years now. Indie games usually make more money if they are really awesome and get people to recommend them to other people, so in that case design goals and my goals align.
IMO you can't just say all AAA titles do this and that. There are also games like Elden Ring and Baldurs Gate 3 which are just that good and don't want to extract money from you. If we talk exclusively about AAA GaaS games then yes you can generalize there is a high probability they are not worth your time and money
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
There is also the secondary problem that at some companies, the goal of game design is not to make a fun game. It is to make a game that extracts the maximum amount of money from its victims. For that, the game needs to be fun enough to get people in, or at least look fun enough. But then it needs to be slightly less fun, with the constant promise of being more fun if you spend more money.
There is a reason that i haven't engaged with AAA titles in some years now. Indie games usually make more money if they are really awesome and get people to recommend them to other people, so in that case design goals and my goals align.
IMO you can't just say all AAA titles do this and that. There are also games like Elden Ring and Baldurs Gate 3 which are just that good and don't want to extract money from you. If we talk exclusively about AAA GaaS games then yes you can generalize there is a high probability they are not worth your time and money
There are some exceptions, that is true. And i guess i for some reason don't really count Elden Ring as AAA even though by any reasonable definition it should be. So i guess i lied before, and there are some games out of the AAA category which i do play. I was mostly talking about the grey mash of samey microtransaction-riddled GaaS things.
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
There is also the secondary problem that at some companies, the goal of game design is not to make a fun game. It is to make a game that extracts the maximum amount of money from its victims. For that, the game needs to be fun enough to get people in, or at least look fun enough. But then it needs to be slightly less fun, with the constant promise of being more fun if you spend more money.
There is a reason that i haven't engaged with AAA titles in some years now. Indie games usually make more money if they are really awesome and get people to recommend them to other people, so in that case design goals and my goals align.
To be fair to game designers, they usually are concerned only with making a fun game, people in charge of monetization are sort of a different specialty. They're certainly influenced by it because obviously the suits only care about the monetization and the dark pattern monetization designer types are almost assuredly influencing the game's balance and design around the monetization, but technically the people in charge of designing the game's systems as a game are kind of separate. Don't hate them! They're doing their best, as ever its a scummier class of people who basically tamp down on good intentions of those below them in order to try to squeeze the money out.
And yeah, honestly Indie - AA games are likely going to be the way forward, smaller budgets, more interesting game ideas, not just regurgitating safe trash.
My companies gonna release our game into early access on steam this year, I'm hoping we're riding a wave of small studio success after stuff like Hell Divers II so we can keep funded and making interesting games.
On March 07 2024 14:02 emperorchampion wrote: I’m also not sure where people are being laid off. Is it programmers, designers, artists, etc.? I’ve felt over the past few years that typically too many resources are poured into things that people don’t really care about. Like yeah you can have fantastic animation and sound design, but is your game actually fun to play? I see why it’s done since it’s a lot easier and more consistent to produce good sound, graphics than having a unique and genuinely fun gameplay loop.
Everyones being laid off really, I dont see it concentrated amongst any particular discipline.
Game design being very stale is really more of a thing relating to high level mismanagement by fuckwits who can only envision the last game they played or whatever is currently "safe." So Ubisoft's grey mechanical blob style games, basic rereleases of the same game thats already been done to death, etc. come out because executives see those as safe compared to something more daring like Helldivers 2 that really could have just failed, but is unique and interesting and so it didnt fail.
Money people dont like risk and at this point risk is interesting.
There is also the secondary problem that at some companies, the goal of game design is not to make a fun game. It is to make a game that extracts the maximum amount of money from its victims. For that, the game needs to be fun enough to get people in, or at least look fun enough. But then it needs to be slightly less fun, with the constant promise of being more fun if you spend more money.
There is a reason that i haven't engaged with AAA titles in some years now. Indie games usually make more money if they are really awesome and get people to recommend them to other people, so in that case design goals and my goals align.
To be fair to game designers, they usually are concerned only with making a fun game, people in charge of monetization are sort of a different specialty. They're certainly influenced by it because obviously the suits only care about the monetization and the dark pattern monetization designer types are almost assuredly influencing the game's balance and design around the monetization, but technically the people in charge of designing the game's systems as a game are kind of separate. Don't hate them! They're doing their best, as ever its a scummier class of people who basically tamp down on good intentions of those below them in order to try to squeeze the money out.
And yeah, honestly Indie - AA games are likely going to be the way forward, smaller budgets, more interesting game ideas, not just regurgitating safe trash.
My companies gonna release our game into early access on steam this year, I'm hoping we're riding a wave of small studio success after stuff like Hell Divers II so we can keep funded and making interesting games.
I absolutely have no problem with game designers, nor do i hate them. I wrote "game design" and not "game designers" for that reason. Sadly a lot of game design is influenced not by the game designers, but by the suits and monetization designers, as you described.
Yeah, really everyone is, the amount of stupid fuckery that higher up management pulls is absurd. In art there are specific things that like, concept artists do to manipulate them into making decisions in line with what the concept artist wants because you can rely on someone unfamiliar with art picking the worst of eight designs if left to their own choices lol.
Indie/AAs definitely gonna be the way of the future, right now the games industry is kind of a shit show, but I honestly have a lot of hope for it going forward (assuming AAA gets pruned back in favor of more not-AAA)
Nexon has been doing some very bad things for a very very long time. I'm not surprised at all though. Standard video game industry BS. Did GamesIndustry.biz cover this?
On March 09 2024 00:29 Zambrah wrote: Indie/AAs definitely gonna be the way of the future, right now the games industry is kind of a shit show, but I honestly have a lot of hope for it going forward (assuming AAA gets pruned back in favor of more not-AAA)
i'd say its always been a shitshow. 70s: Mattel lies to parents to get them to buy a console that will become a home computer. This promise is never fulfilled. The original Intellivision which retailed for an inflation adjusted $1200 can never be a computer. Mattel is chased around by the FTC and other government consumer advocates for years about their massive fraud.
Atari's best employees leave and form Activision and want to pay Atari $0 in royalty fees for making games on their system. The fight drags on in court and Activision wins the right to pay $0 crippling the industry.
Universal competes with Taito's Space Invaders by copying it and changing the graphics slightly. The sound effects are identical. Their game is #6 while Space Invaders was #1. Pretty Scummy.
Namco pays $35K to a single man who creates Pacman and it makes $1 Billion in 1 year. They get Ms. Pacman made for free by a bunch of US college kids. Ms. Pacman is the #4 grossing arcade game of all time. Pacman becomes #1. The creators are forgotten while being paid peanuts.
Nolan Bushnell thoroughly fucks over all his previous employers in order to staff Atari.
Mattel refuses to credit the makers of their most popular games designed for the #2 home system behind Atari. Of course, Mattel pays them all peanuts.
In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
By this time, Atlantic was the third largest non-bank lender in Canada. Because they were not a bank they had very little in the way of government oversight or reporting requirements and they had more than their share of shady deals in play.
It'll be interesting to see if any of the big studio owners publicly whine about this. i'd like to see subsidies cut to a nice round $0.
As the province of Quebec goes deeper and deeper into debt it is going to be harder and harder to justify the crazy high subsidies they offer to the video game industry.
On March 12 2024 02:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
K.C. Munchkin! was found to have infringed on Pac-Man's copyright, as per a lawsuit appeal showing how similar KCM was to Pac-Man. Protecting your copyright isn't being scummy, and it's absolutely necessary.
"In 1982, the appellate court found that Philips had copied Pac-Man and made alterations that "only tend to emphasize the extent to which it deliberately copied the Plaintiff's work." The ruling was one of the first to establish how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!
On March 12 2024 02:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
K.C. Munchkin! was found to have infringed on Pac-Man's copyright, as per a lawsuit appeal showing how similar KCM was to Pac-Man. Protecting your copyright isn't being scummy, and it's absolutely necessary.
"In 1982, the appellate court found that Philips had copied Pac-Man and made alterations that "only tend to emphasize the extent to which it deliberately copied the Plaintiff's work." The ruling was one of the first to establish how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!
How much KC Munchkin have you played? I'm guessing... not much. How much Atari 2600 Pacman have you played? I'm guessing you googled some stuff and regurgitated it on here?
KC Munchkin had its own maze editor so users can make their own mazes. No other maze game made it possible to make your own mazes. It had really cool game variations like a growing centipede running through the maze. Pacman had no mechanic like that at all. Pacman had 1 static maze. KC Munchkin's enemies AI was totally different from Atari's due to the dynamic ever changing maze. KC Munckhin was more different from Pacman than LadyBug, Lock 'n' Chase and Cat Trax. Those other 3 games had giant powerful publishers behind them. And the games were not as good nor as extensive. KC Munchkin was a game sand box.
The dots in Mouse Trap, LadyBug and Lock 'n' Chase all were static just like Pacman. The DOTS in KC Munchkin moved and would accelerate. The longer you remained in the maze the harder it was to get to the dots. In the other games the dots were 100% static. Damn... KC Munchkin was cool. Ms Pacman had a moving fruit ... that game came out AFTER KC Munchkin introduced the idea of moving dots.
Atari 2600 Pacman was a garbage game bordering on shovel ware. KC Munchkin was the best dot eating maze game of its console generation. THat is why Atari went after it.
This is a BS legal result made possible because Atari spent 87 bazillion dollars litigating it.
Now, if Atari's #1 priority were entertaining people they would've backed off of legal action on Odyssey2 in the same way Blizzard backed away from litigating Dota2 with Valve.
However, Atari was a scum bucket company in the 1970s. So they went after a maze game maker with limited legal resources. They didn't bother with Lock'n'Chase because it had Data East behind it. LadyBug had Universal behind it. Universal was a nasty company with a "fuck u" reputation. They almost completely duplicated Space Invaders and told Taito to go fuck themselves.
Atari 2600 Pacman was easily the worst dot eating maze game of its generation. Only 1 "ghost" is visible on the screen at one time. The dots are like lines. The sound is terrible. But, it was $70 USD when it hit store shelves. Lock'n'Chase and KC Munchkin were half that price. So, rather than making a better game Atari went after its #1 competition.
KC Munchkin was incredibly innovative with a massive scope of features. Atari killed it through legal means. Atari did not win by making a better game. Atari never tried to match all the really cool stuff O2 packaged with KC Munchkin. Had they at least attempted a game as great as KC Munchkin I'd have a modicum of respect for them. They did not.
Just before this stuff happened they fired David Crane, Allan Miller and Bob Whitehead their 3 best game designers. Ray Kassar didn't need geniuses... the customers would buy anything he believed... like for example... the garbage game Pacman.
On March 12 2024 02:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
K.C. Munchkin! was found to have infringed on Pac-Man's copyright, as per a lawsuit appeal showing how similar KCM was to Pac-Man. Protecting your copyright isn't being scummy, and it's absolutely necessary.
"In 1982, the appellate court found that Philips had copied Pac-Man and made alterations that "only tend to emphasize the extent to which it deliberately copied the Plaintiff's work." The ruling was one of the first to establish how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!
How much KC Munchkin have you played? I'm guessing... not much. How much Atari 2600 Pacman have you played? I'm guessing you googled some stuff and regurgitated it on here?
KC Munchkin had its own maze editor so users can make their own mazes. No other maze game made it possible to make your own mazes. It had really cool game variations like a growing centipede running through the maze. Pacman had no mechanic like that at all. Pacman had 1 static maze. KC Munchkin's enemies AI was totally different from Atari's due to the dynamic ever changing maze. KC Munckhin was more different from Pacman than LadyBug, Lock 'n' Chase and Cat Trax. Those other 3 games had giant powerful publishers behind them. And the games were not as good nor as extensive. KC Munchkin was a game sand box.
The dots in Mouse Trap, LadyBug and Lock 'n' Chase all were static just like Pacman. The DOTS in KC Munchkin moved and would accelerate. Damn... KC Munchkin was cool. Ms Pacman had a moving fruit ... that game came out AFTER KC Munchkin introduced the idea of moving dots.
Atari 2600 Pacman was a garbage game bordering on shovel ware. KC Munchkin was the best dot eating maze game of its console generation. THat is why Atari went after it.
This is a BS legal result made possible because Atari spent 87 bazillion dollars litigating it.
Now, if Atari's #1 priority were entertaining people they would've backed off of legal action on Odyssey2 in the same way Blizzard backed away from litigating Dota2 with Valve.
However, Atari was a scum bucket company in the 1970s. So they went after a maze game maker with limited legal resources. They didn't bother with Lock'n'Chase because it had Data East behind it. LadyBug had Universal behind it. Universal was a nasty company with a "fuck u" reputation. They almost completely duplicated Space Invaders and told Taito to go fuck themselves.
Atari 2600 Pacman was easily the worst dot eating maze game of its generation. Only 1 "ghost" is visible on the screen at one time. The dots are like lines. The sound is terrible. But, it was $70 USD when it hit store shelves. Lock'n'Chase and KC Munchkin were half that price. So, rather than making a better game Atari went after its #1 competition.
KC Munchkin was incredibly innovative with a massive scope of features. Atari killed it through legal means. Atari did not win by making a better game. Atari never tried to match all the really cool stuff O2 packaged with KC Munchkin. Had they at least attempted a game as great as KC Munchkin I'd have a modicum of respect for them. They did not.
Right after that they fired David Crane, Allan Miller and Bob Whitehead. 3 game design geniuses.
Atari is scum.
The question isn't whether or not you personally prefer one game over the other, or whether or not Pac-Man should have been cheaper lol. If you have a problem with the verdict, criticize the legal system. Saying that Atari did other bad things doesn't mean they were wrong to protect their copyright.
On March 12 2024 02:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
K.C. Munchkin! was found to have infringed on Pac-Man's copyright, as per a lawsuit appeal showing how similar KCM was to Pac-Man. Protecting your copyright isn't being scummy, and it's absolutely necessary.
"In 1982, the appellate court found that Philips had copied Pac-Man and made alterations that "only tend to emphasize the extent to which it deliberately copied the Plaintiff's work." The ruling was one of the first to establish how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!
How much KC Munchkin have you played? I'm guessing... not much. How much Atari 2600 Pacman have you played? I'm guessing you googled some stuff and regurgitated it on here?
KC Munchkin had its own maze editor so users can make their own mazes. No other maze game made it possible to make your own mazes. It had really cool game variations like a growing centipede running through the maze. Pacman had no mechanic like that at all. Pacman had 1 static maze. KC Munchkin's enemies AI was totally different from Atari's due to the dynamic ever changing maze. KC Munckhin was more different from Pacman than LadyBug, Lock 'n' Chase and Cat Trax. Those other 3 games had giant powerful publishers behind them. And the games were not as good nor as extensive. KC Munchkin was a game sand box.
The dots in Mouse Trap, LadyBug and Lock 'n' Chase all were static just like Pacman. The DOTS in KC Munchkin moved and would accelerate. Damn... KC Munchkin was cool. Ms Pacman had a moving fruit ... that game came out AFTER KC Munchkin introduced the idea of moving dots.
Atari 2600 Pacman was a garbage game bordering on shovel ware. KC Munchkin was the best dot eating maze game of its console generation. THat is why Atari went after it.
This is a BS legal result made possible because Atari spent 87 bazillion dollars litigating it.
Now, if Atari's #1 priority were entertaining people they would've backed off of legal action on Odyssey2 in the same way Blizzard backed away from litigating Dota2 with Valve.
However, Atari was a scum bucket company in the 1970s. So they went after a maze game maker with limited legal resources. They didn't bother with Lock'n'Chase because it had Data East behind it. LadyBug had Universal behind it. Universal was a nasty company with a "fuck u" reputation. They almost completely duplicated Space Invaders and told Taito to go fuck themselves.
Atari 2600 Pacman was easily the worst dot eating maze game of its generation. Only 1 "ghost" is visible on the screen at one time. The dots are like lines. The sound is terrible. But, it was $70 USD when it hit store shelves. Lock'n'Chase and KC Munchkin were half that price. So, rather than making a better game Atari went after its #1 competition.
KC Munchkin was incredibly innovative with a massive scope of features. Atari killed it through legal means. Atari did not win by making a better game. Atari never tried to match all the really cool stuff O2 packaged with KC Munchkin. Had they at least attempted a game as great as KC Munchkin I'd have a modicum of respect for them. They did not.
Right after that they fired David Crane, Allan Miller and Bob Whitehead. 3 game design geniuses.
Atari is scum.
The question isn't whether or not you personally prefer one game over the other, or whether or not Pac-Man should have been cheaper lol. If you have a problem with the verdict, criticize the legal system. Saying that Atari did other bad things doesn't mean they were wrong to protect their copyright.
its not preference. Atari went after KC Munchkin because it was good. Pacman was more similar to the other games I mentioned. I outlined exactly how different KC Munchkin was from all those games.
Had they at least attempted to compete with KC Munchkin while simultaneously legally killing it.... I'd have some respect for their efforts. They did not do that. They got rid of their best game designers. They killed a great game in a court room.
This really scummy behaviour didn't last long. David Crane , Bob Whitehead, and Allan Miller took all their customers.
On March 12 2024 02:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote: In this era dot eating maze games were the #1 game genre. Atari crushes the maker of the best console dot eating maze game namely KC Munchkin. KC Munchkin is pulled off of store shelves and is no longer sold. Out of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Odyssey2 KC Munchkin is by far the best dot eating maze game and you can't buy it. Atari is pure scum. Atari Pacman is a garbage game bordering on shovel-ware.
K.C. Munchkin! was found to have infringed on Pac-Man's copyright, as per a lawsuit appeal showing how similar KCM was to Pac-Man. Protecting your copyright isn't being scummy, and it's absolutely necessary.
"In 1982, the appellate court found that Philips had copied Pac-Man and made alterations that "only tend to emphasize the extent to which it deliberately copied the Plaintiff's work." The ruling was one of the first to establish how copyright law would apply to the look and feel of computer software.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.C._Munchkin!
How much KC Munchkin have you played? I'm guessing... not much. How much Atari 2600 Pacman have you played? I'm guessing you googled some stuff and regurgitated it on here?
KC Munchkin had its own maze editor so users can make their own mazes. No other maze game made it possible to make your own mazes. It had really cool game variations like a growing centipede running through the maze. Pacman had no mechanic like that at all. Pacman had 1 static maze. KC Munchkin's enemies AI was totally different from Atari's due to the dynamic ever changing maze. KC Munckhin was more different from Pacman than LadyBug, Lock 'n' Chase and Cat Trax. Those other 3 games had giant powerful publishers behind them. And the games were not as good nor as extensive. KC Munchkin was a game sand box.
The dots in Mouse Trap, LadyBug and Lock 'n' Chase all were static just like Pacman. The DOTS in KC Munchkin moved and would accelerate. Damn... KC Munchkin was cool. Ms Pacman had a moving fruit ... that game came out AFTER KC Munchkin introduced the idea of moving dots.
Atari 2600 Pacman was a garbage game bordering on shovel ware. KC Munchkin was the best dot eating maze game of its console generation. THat is why Atari went after it.
This is a BS legal result made possible because Atari spent 87 bazillion dollars litigating it.
Now, if Atari's #1 priority were entertaining people they would've backed off of legal action on Odyssey2 in the same way Blizzard backed away from litigating Dota2 with Valve.
However, Atari was a scum bucket company in the 1970s. So they went after a maze game maker with limited legal resources. They didn't bother with Lock'n'Chase because it had Data East behind it. LadyBug had Universal behind it. Universal was a nasty company with a "fuck u" reputation. They almost completely duplicated Space Invaders and told Taito to go fuck themselves.
Atari 2600 Pacman was easily the worst dot eating maze game of its generation. Only 1 "ghost" is visible on the screen at one time. The dots are like lines. The sound is terrible. But, it was $70 USD when it hit store shelves. Lock'n'Chase and KC Munchkin were half that price. So, rather than making a better game Atari went after its #1 competition.
KC Munchkin was incredibly innovative with a massive scope of features. Atari killed it through legal means. Atari did not win by making a better game. Atari never tried to match all the really cool stuff O2 packaged with KC Munchkin. Had they at least attempted a game as great as KC Munchkin I'd have a modicum of respect for them. They did not.
Right after that they fired David Crane, Allan Miller and Bob Whitehead. 3 game design geniuses.
Atari is scum.
The question isn't whether or not you personally prefer one game over the other, or whether or not Pac-Man should have been cheaper lol. If you have a problem with the verdict, criticize the legal system. Saying that Atari did other bad things doesn't mean they were wrong to protect their copyright.
its not preference. Atari went after KC Munchkin because it was good. Pacman was more similar to the other games I mentioned. I outlined exactly how different it was.
Had they at least attempted to compete with KC Munchkin while simultaneously legally killing it.... I'd have some respect for their efforts. They did not do that. They got rid of their best game designers.
What does this mean? Pac-Man existed before KCM, and more Pac-Man games came afterwards too. Copyright protection isn't about leaving the copycat alone and trying to simply beat it in sales or on some other personal, subjective merits.
Do you disagree with the concepts of copyrighting and trademarking and general intellectual property protection?
None of the Pacman games had the maze creator KC Munchkin introduced in 1981. KC Munchkin was a sand box. And , again I've listed all the stuff KC Munchkin had that none of the other Dot Eating Maze games had in their feature set.
Dude, it wasn't even close. KC Munchkin was orders of magnitude better than anyhting on Atari, Intellivision or Colecovision.
And like I said.. had Atari even tried to make something for the Atari 2600 that could match it.. then fine. They didn't. They killed the game while simultaneously firing their best game designers.
Pure scum move man.
On March 13 2024 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Do you disagree with the concepts of copyrighting and trademarking and general intellectual property protection?
yes, however, giant companies can abuse those protections when dealing with a much smaller company with less legal means. Why didn't Taito go after Universal when they copied Space Invaders... changed the graphics slightly and kept the sound identical? Because Universal had far more resources.
Atari abused the legal system.
On March 13 2024 18:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Pac-Man existed before KCM, and more Pac-Man games came afterwards too. Copyright protection isn't about leaving the copycat alone and trying to simply beat it in sales or on some other personal, subjective merits.
Atari did not make anything for the Atari 2600 with even 10% of the features of KC Munchkin. They just killed it. No dot eating maze game made by Namco or Atari came any where close to the 1981 feature set of KC Munchkin until the 1990s.
Your characterization of "copy cat" requires more detail. Courts are wrong all the time.
Exidy's Mouse Trap is Pacman with different sprites. Mouse Trap is far more of a "copy cat" to Pacman than KC Munchkin. Where is the big Atari case against Mouse Trap? Exidy had ample legal resources and the Mouse Trap was not a threat. So they left it alone.
EPT
