I've mad a few clones before, but never released them as I only saw them as a learning tool.

I've also had this idea for a game for a long time now and I'm working up to it, but I've developed anxiety of ever announcing it from fear of it being cloned before it can be finished. I can't see many things being more demoralizing than your game being cloned and then being successful while your original goes unrecognized.

While I agree it's no fun to develop a game and see someone else come out with something similar earlier, in the end it's about your goals when making a game.

I want to make some fun games that I would play myself and at the same time learn some new things when it comes to programming. If someone else beats me to the punch, I'll be disappointed but I'll also want to try their game and maybe it's just more fun than what I was making. And you can learn from that game, maybe see some things that don't work well and improve on them.

And it's also frustrating when someone (or lots of people) release a similar game after you've released yours. But maybe that just means that your game is fairly simple to make (clones usually seem to be quite easy to make) and what you did, while an achievement for yourself, isn't the next big thing anyway. That may sound a bit harsh, but if you focus on your own goals first, it's something that can be lived with. There's always the next game, anyway.

This reads more like it should be a blog or journal post than an article. It begins as a thinly-disguised rant that takes up about a third of the word count. Then it presents a poorly-researched (or at least, poorly backed-up) assertion about how clones harm the industry and offers two very vague, unrealistic and barely-actionable "solutions."

This article needs to trim the ranting, define its thesis more clearly and provide better supporting data.

Or you should just move it to a journal post, where it would be more appropriate.

I don't think Flappy Bird was taken off the market because developers were claiming it was a "clone". My understanding was the developer was concerned about how addicted everyone was getting to it. I could be wrong.

Your repeated use of the term "dirty clone" is a bit over-emotive for a professional article as well.

I wouldn't even begin to call this an article. It comes across to me as nothing more than a long winded rant about what is actually a normal thing in game development. Call of Duty? Medal of Honor? There are tons of games that have been regarded as clones or wannabes so it should be no surprise that the indie community has the same thing happening.

This reads more like it should be a blog or journal post than an article. It begins as a thinly-disguised rant that takes up about a third of the word count.

[...]

Or you should just move it to a journal post, where it would be more appropriate.

Exactly my thoughts. This should be in an personal blog / Development Journal - these kinds of posts are good for discussion, but they need to go in the correct location. It's not a real article, in the same way it's not a real tutorial, or not a real baking recipe. It's a blog post, which is fine, but blog posts belong on blogs.

Or maybe I just don't understand what makes a "Soapbox" article?

I wouldn't even begin to call this an article. It comes across to me as nothing more than a long winded rant about what is actually a normal thing in game development. Call of Duty? Medal of Honor? There are tons of games that have been regarded as clones or wannabes so it should be no surprise that the indie community has the same thing happening.

"Considered normal" does not necessarily mean "good" or "right," in the same way that "should" and "is" don't mean the same thing. That many "AAA" games are likewise "clones" does not invalidate the argument that gameplay cloning in the "Indie" space is a problem.

This does feel like a dev journal article, though.

Or maybe I just don't understand what makes a "Soapbox" article?

It's all just content. Whether here, or on the blogs. "articles" and "blogs" are fairly interchangeable when the topic is something primarily outward-facing and provoking of discussion. About the only content I consider to be blog-only are personal project/life/hobby updates. If someone wants to discuss their latest game build, or make notes on their progress, that's a pure blog post. If someone wants to talk about how they found this cool new game to suck up all their time, or a personal hobby, or a new job, that's a blog post. There are plenty of blog posts that could just as well be an article. Some have been posted in both places.

The Soapbox section was created for the very purpose of posting opinions, ranting about stuff and then discussing it. Anyone can stand on the soapbox and talk about whatever they want related to game development. This isn't the most well-written rant. I had to fix a few rather basic spelling and grammatical mistakes made by the author. He does tend to repeat himself and retread things. But that's what peer-review is all about. Remember, don't reject an article just because you disagree with the author - that's what the comments section is for. If you feel the argument should be better expressed and/or re-thought, then I would suggest the "Unclear or Incomplete" rejection status, as someone has already done. Whoever submitted "Needs help with categorization" I would ask they removed that vote.

This article needs to trim the ranting, define its thesis more clearly and provide better supporting data.

That's some good feedback, hopefully the author will take that and make appropriate changes. If not, then it's likely this article will be rejected back to draft status. But again, that's the point of the peer review process. I'm no longer the sole gatekeeper. I can't just declare an article to be crap and send it back to the author. To be honest there have been a few I thought were pretty crappy people have liked a lot.

Remember, don't reject an article just because you disagree with the author - that's what the comments section is for.

Absolutely - my vote and my comment had nothing to do with disagreeing with what the author wrote about... my comment didn't even mention my views on what the article is discussing. I've disagreed (in the comments) with several articles that I approved, because they were well written and good articles.

My approving/rejecting articles doesn't have to do with my personal opinions on the subject matter, but rather my opinions of the quality of articles or, in this case, whether the article even belongs here. I actually agree with the author that cloning and reskinning is a problem for the game industry.

Whoever submitted "Needs help with categorization" I would ask they removed that vote.

Sure, I'll remove it. I generally believed it to be in the wrong category, and couldn't find a "Not suitable for article format" option. I mean, the author's post is certainly not unclear - the english and punctuation is acceptable. It's the content (not the subject!), and the location on the site, that made me reject it.

So uh, for my future knowledge, what does "Needs help with categorization" mean, if not 'in the wrong category'?

So far, I'd guess I'm >20 approvals verses ~3 rejects, though I don't know the actual numbers - I'm certainly not flippantly downvoting articles I disagree with.

Take, for example, this article. I was the first to read through it and approve it, but I disagreed very heavily with it and even thought it was factually inaccurate. It made a good article though, and I enjoyed its presence here because it got me thinking about the subject and discussing it more.

Contrast with this article, where I (in general) agree with the author - but still feel the article doesn't belong, despite agreeing.

"Considered normal" does not necessarily mean "good" or "right," in the same way that "should" and "is" don't mean the same thing. That many "AAA" games are likewise "clones" does not invalidate the argument that gameplay cloning in the "Indie" space is a problem.

This does feel like a dev journal article, though.

Normal doesn't mean "good", "bad", "right", or "wrong". I don't see clones in "indie" space as a problem. I see it more as a motivator, a way of saying "Hey! Someone can make the game you just did! It's time to up your game and try something new! Even try adding new features!" The first games we ever create when learning game development are clones (Tic Tac Toe, Hangman, Pong, Breakout, etc.) so it makes perfect sense to me that someone would see a game that is simple, realize they could clone it, and then naturally try to piggyback off the fame and profit by releasing their attempt at the game.

Still nothing to rant about. To put it another way... kick the tires, light the fire, and get down to making something that tops the previous game (or simple update it trying to be better than the clones).

I've looked up your youtube channel and saw the game you're working on. Looks like you've been putting a lot of time into it, and i think the game is fun and is going to sale well.

But the mechanics (as seen in the videos) are nothing special new. It's the barrel mechanic everybody already has seen in Donkey Kong Country. So you could say it's a Donkey Kong Country clone, and therefore it's pretty impudent to rant about clones, just because someone else copies Donkey Kong Country mechanics.

I haven't seen the clones of your game - if they use level design/ exact mechanics and just switch assets - it's another story.

Thanks for everyone's input. I will definitely try and improve the article as soon as I have time. I originally meant the article to read more like a "How to" for preventing your games from being cloned but like many said it came of as more of a rant. I also apologize for the poor grammar, I'm primarily a programmer so writing isn't one of my strong points though I'm trying to improve.

I understand where many of you are coming from in saying that almost all games could be considered clones. Most games are inspired from games in the past. Most games take a concept from another game improve upon it. In the article I tried to explain that I don't consider these games clones. The games that I consider clones do not change game mechanics at all from the original title and simply change the art. Here is a short article that I think better defines the types of clones that I'm trying to describe as well as their development process, http://kotaku.com/the-depressing-black-market-where-games-are-ripped-off-1516904667

I've looked up your youtube channel and saw the game you're working on. Looks like you've been putting a lot of time into it, and i think the game is fun and is going to sale well.

But the mechanics (as seen in the videos) are nothing special new. It's the barrel mechanic everybody already has seen in Donkey Kong Country. So you could say it's a Donkey Kong Country clone, and therefore it's pretty impudent to rant about clones, just because someone else copies Donkey Kong Country mechanics.

I haven't seen the clones of your game - if they use level design/ exact mechanics and just switch assets - it's another story.

Thanks for checking out my game. I think your right in that the game shares some similarities to the DKC barrel mechanics, but the barrel sequences in DKC are very different of my game. DKC depends heavily on timing your shots from one barrel to another, while my game depends more on moving your character while outside of a barrel. I also tried to add to the mechanics by adding features such as barrels firing from other barrels. The game plays much different than DKC though I'm sure some may call the game a clone without even playing it.

I haven't seen any games out there that I would call a clone of my game, or even clones of DKC. I think recently three games have been announced that use the DKC barrel mechanic, they all look great by the way. From the footage seen of them I would have to say that depend more on timing your shots more than moving your character in the air to reach other barrels or dodge obstacles.

I'd like to thank everyone again for reading and post your input. I'll work on making this a more informative article that written better.

Markets have ways to adjust. Never publish half finished original games. If a game is clone, then there is no harm is releasing a lot of material to create a hype of the game.

No matter what all games have very less shelf life. So the innovation is a continous process, not a one shot. The ones who stay long enough may succeed to become a bigger game production house.

Clones are all ok, because there is a tremondous demand of games, and it will keep growing. the age groups are widening and overlapping hence more variety will come.

So uh, for my future knowledge, what does "Needs help with categorization" mean, if not 'in the wrong category'?

No you're right about the meaning of the rejection option, just wrong about the use in this particular case. Like I said, it may not be the most well-written rant but it's an opinion about something game-dev related and that means it's a soapbox piece.

Normal doesn't mean "good", "bad", "right", or "wrong". I don't see clones in "indie" space as a problem. I see it more as a motivator, a way of saying "Hey! Someone can make the game you just did! It's time to up your game and try something new! Even try adding new features!"

It strikes me that you're trying to apply reasoning from the AAA space to the "Indie" space. That doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Indies do not have the resources available to them that AAA studios do. That's why we call them "Indie" developers. Not all "Indie" developers actually have the financial means to keep adding new features and innovate constantly. Many of them likely don't have the time even if they have the money. Furthermore, even if someone did clone my game, and I did what you're saying, that wouldn't change the overall problem at hand here. I could be out-competed by my clones. Or the original market for my game could become saturated with terrible clones meaning that NOBODY wins.

The first games we ever create when learning game development are clones (Tic Tac Toe, Hangman, Pong, Breakout, etc.)

But those are, by and large, projects intended for the experience. I wouldn't bother trying to sell yet another Hangman clone - there's so many of them out there that I wouldn't really be bringing anything new to the table.

so it makes perfect sense to me that someone would see a game that is simple, realize they could clone it, and then naturally try to piggyback off the fame and profit by releasing their attempt at the game.

It might make perfect sense to you, but an action that makes perfect sense on an individual level can nevertheless be damaging when many individuals do it. I, personally, would never knowingly clone and try to sell a game, knowing what damage that might do even if my own game is unsuccessful.