Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game

Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game by moron4hire on Friday March 28, 2014 @07:39AM (#7486533)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game by rspeer on Saturday March 29, 2014 @06:17AM (#7491889)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game by epo on Saturday March 29, 2014 @09:41AM (#7492188)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Threes: The Rip-offs and Making Our Original Game by girvo on Saturday March 29, 2014 @10:12AM (#7492271)

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

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

[ Parent | on HN ]