It's almost a shame they spent so much time talking about 2048; it takes away from the point I gleaned: to make something simple and "obvious" takes a ton of work. I've spent months on designs, and felt bad because the end design was so obvious. "Why didn't I think of that in the first place?"

Very true. It's easy to look at something someone else has done and say, "not a big deal." You don't see the sweat or the design process.

It's actually a big compliment, too. It signifies the design is conceptually sound and as small as it could be.

It may be very hard to make an idea's time come, but once it arrives it's almost trivial & unstoppable. The "four minute mile" (running) was considered impossible ... until someone did it (under adverse conditions to boot), then it almost immediately became the norm for serious runners. The tablet as we know it was pursued for decades with resounding failure ... until Jobs nailed it with the iPod Touch, then variants proliferated. Threes took months of nuanced polishing and nobody had anything like it ... until it was released, then 2048 et al was created & became unstoppable almost overnight.

Yeah it's more of an insight into the design process than any sort of 'plea'. It should also be noted that for their previous game, Puzzlejuice, they also released all the emails/prototypes/images that documented the process, so it's likely they would have done the same for Threes even if it hadn't been cloned many times over. The response to the clones and rip-offs is just a tacked on part at the beginning because they feel strongly about it.

If the game were very superior to the clones, they wouldn't have to explain why. Games are like jokes, in that way.

This isn't really true. There are tons of games out there that capture the imagination better than other clones, but have shallower gameplay. The initial 'demo' period might be fun, but it doesn't mean the game will last.

The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.

> The thing with 2048 is a bit different though. It wasn't just a game craze, it was people playing with algorithms. Making a funny/curious clone of the game had become the game for some.

This is the critical point missed by calling 2048 a clone. Of course it's a clone, and that's what makes it so interesting.

2048, in isolation, isn't that much fun; it captured interest for a while, but what made it gain popularity was being so simple that it lent itself to a hundred variations. Every one of those is, in some ways, more a "clone" of 2048 than 2048 is of Threes, but the meta-game has become fun in ways the game itself isn't. Just look at things like Flappy 2048, or Numberwang 2048.

Oh, I agree completely. Your last paragraph is exactly why this letter from the people who made Threes sound so particularly whiney. They have forgotten that they don't get to tell people how to enjoy themselves. Any parent who has watched their kids play with the cardboard box more than the toys that came in it will tell you that.

I don't think we can know why 2048 became so popular and Threes fell in its own shadow. Maybe it's a sign that open source and free as in freedom have finally registered with the general consumer on an emotional level, though I doubt it. If we knew for sure then we could make such better toys that the kids ignore the box.

I don't think the open-source aspect of it was the important difference. Rather, I think the thing that let 2048 become so huge, compared to Threes, is that you can show someone a link to 2048, and the moment they follow the link, they're playing it.

I think this is an important reason not to dismiss the Web as a platform.

This is complete rubbish. 2048 succeeded because it was a blatant 2nd generation copy of the threes gameplay and concept (albeit a poor long term game). It would not have attracted any attention had threes not been so hot. Its principal advantage over threes was being free.

Bullshit. Otherwise 1024 would've taken off. Not 2048.

See how easy it is to shoot down someone's opinion and state your own?

The trouble is that the essay takes a while getting to that point - up until then it sounds like it might be a little bitter. I was about to skip to the end myself when I ran across the 'change of tone'.

I wonder if the post would have been better if the note about the clones was a postscript instead of a preamble.

Then again, it might have seemed even more bitter if it came after all the discussion of their work.

Agreed