WALKING WITH BURKE AND HARE
A brief history of
plagiarism
One of the great ironies about the
videogames industry's powerful and often-voiced objections to copyright
infringement is that, of course, the entire industry was built on a
foundation of that very thing. Almost everyone in charge of a games
publisher today started off engaged in the production of unlicensed clones
of old arcade games like Pac-Man, Centipede, Donkey Kong, Frogger etc.
Fig.1 - Unashamed ripoffs.
(Often, so shameless was the copying that the publishers wouldn't even
bother to change the name. Later they decided that to foil trademark laws
they'd cunningly change just one or two letters - hence Phoenix would
become "Pheenix", Galaxian would become "Galaxians" or "Galakzian",
and so on.)
As time went on and the industry matured, it
started to clean up its act slightly. Ocean's 1984 conversion of Hunchback
is widely thought to be the first instance of a legitimately-licensed home
computer version of a popular arcade hit, and from then on blatant
unlicenced ripoffs started to become the exception rather than the rule.
(Interestingly, Ocean, who had published an
unlicenced Donkey Kong clone in 1983, later went on to release an all-new,
officially-badged conversion three years later, licencing the game from an
uncharacteristically forgiving Nintendo. As far as we can tell, this is
the only instance in gaming history of a company publishing both
unlicenced clones and official conversions of the same game.)
Fig.2 - Slightly ashamed ripoffs.
All this meant, however, was that developers
and publishers started to find sneakier ways of ripping off the work of
others. Most boldly of all, a coder called Harry S Price specialised in
slightly rewriting existing titles and selling them as his own work,
sometimes even under the nose-thumbing "Pirate Software" label. (A
detailed breakdown of Price's works and where they were swiped from can be found on
this
page, originally hosted at the currently-offline cl4.org.)
Well-known figures in even today's games
industry got their start in a similar way. For example, the first known
published work of Martyn Brown, currently director of Worms publishers Team 17
(Worms itself, of course, being an unlicenced, uncredited updating of a
20-year-old game) was a game
called
Henry's Hoard, which was produced by hacking the code of Matthew
Smith's classic Jet Set Willy and rejigging it to make a "new" game -
obviously without any crediting of, or sharing the royalties with,
original creator/coder Smith.
(A somewhat technical breakdown of how this fact was uncovered can be
found here.)
Developers also sought to get round the
problem of having good ideas by continuing to copy them from arcade games,
except this time by choosing obscure arcade games almost nobody had heard
of, and covering their tracks by giving the games entirely new titles
rather than using the original name with one letter changed. This tactic
was widely used in the 16-bit era by Amiga and Atari ST publishers (Core
Design, of Tomb Raider fame, started out by producing Amiga games like
Car-Vup,
an uncredited copy of Jaleco's 1985 arcade title
City
Connection), but slowly
the practice died out - a process which was accelerated by the growth of
emulation, which made videogames history much more accessible and hence
such ripoffs a lot harder to get away with - and it's very rare these days to
see professional software publishers releasing unlicenced, uncredited
clones of someone else's game.
Or at least, it used
to be.
Ocean's Kongs (1983 and 1986 versions): the games
industry has a brief outbreak of morals.
The growth of
the internet, and the rise of the mobile phone as a device for
gaming, have brought the practice of disinterring old videogame
corpses, painting a hasty disguise on them, and flogging them as
your own work, back to life with a vengeance. The web is awash with
unlicenced clones of other people's games, being sold commercially
by professional publishers without either credit or payment to the
original authors. These aren't games which are a bit similar
to existing titles - we're talking absolute 100% ripoffs of all the
design ideas and gameplay mechanics, with a few cosmetic tweaks
hastily pasted on top in an attempt to justify what is in fact a
straightforward case of barefaced plagiarism. Or, if you want to use
the more common term for the unlicenced commercial use of someone
else's intellectual property - piracy.
Unlicenced
clones highlight a curious fact in the attitude of both gamers and
the games industry towards piracy - namely the fact that it seems to
get less offensive to people the more brass-necked you are about it.
For example, take these three diverse approaches to the selling of
other people's games for profit:
- Sell other
people's games for money on a pirate's market stall or a "warez"
website, and the games industry (along with many gamers who've
swallowed some of the industry's endless propaganda and rhetoric on
the subject) regards you as a deadly cancer to be wiped out with all
the force it can muster, setting the full weight of the law against
offenders and gleefully recounting their prison sentences on its
websites.
- Put those same
games on a nice, professional-looking DVD, however, and sell it in a
High Street shop (such as the case of the totally unlicenced "Classix"
CD compilations of old Amiga, Spectrum and other titles which your
reporter unwittingly purchased from his local HMV a couple of years
ago - which actually carried HMV branding on the box artwork - and
which are still openly and illegally sold on the web at staggering
prices, eg £68 for a DVD full of pirated Amiga games), and
you're a respectable businessman who'll be left alone by ELSPA and
their chums to coin in the cash.
- But if you're
really smart, then what you do is completely rip off other people's
ideas and implementation, sometimes even lift the actual graphics
and sound straight out of their games, but present it as your own
work without the slightest credit to the people who actually
invented it. Far from hunting you down with its merciless packs of
lawyers, enforcement agents and Trading Standards officers, the
stupid old games industry won't just let you make profits, it'll
actually give you
awards.
Above: the award-winning 2003 independent game Zuma Deluxe, from
Popcap Games.
Below: Mitchell Corporation's 1998 coin-op Puzz Loop. Spot the
difference.
When World Of
Stuart drew attention to a similar
incidence of for-profit plagiarism in 2003, your reporter was mildly
surprised to see that many coders, as well as a sizeable minority of
gamers, didn't appear to think the cloners had done anything wrong.
Indeed, some indie developers made venomous personal attacks against
your reporter, and some even went so far as to issue violent threats
- not against the plagiarists ripping off other developers' work,
but at the person who'd reported it. (Ironically, when they become
the victims of such behaviour themselves, their view
changes somewhat.)
The actions of the
plagiarists are even more contemptible when viewed in the light of
the coders who work to revive the games of the past in an entirely
more honourable manner. Remake
developers such as Retrospec
and PeeJay's Remakes
spend months at a time recreating vintage games with updated
graphics and sound (and often additional gameplay features), but
rather than claim them as their own work and try to sell them for
profit, they openly admit that they are other people's designs,
produce the games under their original titles, usually obtain the
creator's blessing, and then give the finished work away for
nothing.
Above: Retrospec's beautiful, properly-credited
and free remake of 8-bit classic Head Over Heels.
World Of Stuart
could spend many hours listing only the most blatant unlicenced
ripoffs of other people's games which are currently being openly
sold to PC and mobile-phone gamers by clone publishers as original
releases. However, since it's hard for WoS to name and shame the
guilty without actually advertising their plagiarised products, it
won't bother. The details of the website charging 70 quid for a disc
of old Amiga games, however, have been sent to
ELSPA's Anti-Piracy Unit, so
we'll see if they can find some time in their busy schedule of
persecuting non-profit emulation sites and small-time market traders
to take action against people who've been boldly and openly making
an ostensibly-legitimate business out of it. Keep an eye on WoS for
news of any developments.
You may also like
to watch for the outcome of the recent
lawsuit launched by Sega against Fox/Electronic Arts, the makers
of The Simpsons: Road Rage, a blatant copy of Crazy Taxi which is
still less of a clone than a great many of the "independent" titles
this feature is concerned with. (Sega's suit is actually concerned
with a specific patent rather than general plagiarism issues, but
should it get to court, the judgement could well set a precedent.)
And in the
meantime, if you want to play Puzz Loop on your PC, then buy the
Playstation version - which actually costs less than the PC
clone - and run it on an emulator (because emulators, even though
the games industry hates them and spends infinitely more time trying
to crush them than on trying to stop the commercial plagiarism of
its members' works, are perfectly legal). And you're really
determined to play it illegally, then World Of Stuart recommends
that you go and download MAME and the arcade ROM file, because at
least that way you won't be lining the pockets of a bunch of ripoff
merchants.
|