Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

They shipped the first version. They then decide to ise the term "rip offs" - even though people developing one of the first very popular rip offs claim to have never seen Threes!

View on HN

Are you referring to 2048?

They said they were based on 1024, and 1024 explicitly launched with an app store description along the lines of "Why waste your money on Threes, we're free".

EDIT: Found the quote. Surprise surprise it's no longer in their description.

"No need to pay for ThreesGames. This is a simple and fun gift for you, and it’s free."

Which 2048 are you referring to? The creator of the one that hit it off on HN said that they weren't aware of Threes until after it took off [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7373927

He says he wasn't aware of Threes, I have no reason to doubt him. If I saw a simple game and wanted to make my own version, I wouldn't do in-depth research of the original game either.

He was cloning 1024 which was explicitly a clone of Threes. I was only pointing out there was a chain there.

You seemed to be implying that he must have known that there was a link between 1024 and Threes and therefore the term rip off was suitable.

I think they're implying that the term ripoff is suitable regardless of whether he knew there was a link between 1024 and Threes.

He was explicitly copying _something_, in a chain of direct borrowings that goes back to Threes. You seem to be taking issue with the pejorative implications of "rip off" that the original article is using to demarcate the difference between an exact clone and the near-but-different copies we're seeing now.

The innovation appears to have advanced enough that some of the 2048 variations are more akin "Doom clones" and "Roguelikes" than they are to "app store clones". But the 2048 apps that have flooded the app store and are mostly direct clones of the web 2048 versions. And they exist in a previously unnamed space between "clone" and "variation".

The very comment you link to says 2048 was based on 1024. And 1024 was indisputably based on Threes.

How does that negate my point?

the point is that you cannot download an iOS app without encountering its description, so to say that you know about 1024 and not Threes is deeply suspect.

Do you read iOS descriptions of apps you know you're going to download? I sure don't! If I see a friend playing a game that looks good, I download it without reading.

That is incorrect.

Search for a game. The set of games is displayed with an install link and a screenshot. The description needs some scrolling.

(Edit: bizarrely heavy downvoting in this thread)

Your point seems to imply 2048 was not based on Threes. But it was in fact based on something that was based on Threes, which is equivalent.

Ah, I see. Well, my intention was to simply add evidence to the claim that the creator of the well known 2048 didn't know about Threes when he created it. There seemed to be a dispute, so I remembered the comment and linked to it.

The webpage for that 2048 references Threes, so even he is supporting a line of direct influence.

Cirulli explicitly says in that post that the chain of creation was Threes -> 1024 -> Saming's 2048 without animation -> Gabriel Cirulli's 2048.

If you are referring to 2048, that’s because it was ripping off 1024, not Threes.

Actually the app copying goes: Threes -> 1024 -> 2048

But, not that I know the situation, it is possible according to your example that 2048 to not be aware of Threes.

Currently my most downvoted post, even though it is factually accurate and contains no opinion.

Still misleading. The 2048 creators may not have known of Threes, but were influenced by it nonetheless. An incomplete fact set imputing malice warrants downvoting.

What malice am I imputing?

One of the clones was amde without being aware of Threes!, other people are using the term "rip off", not me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com