My concern here is that public response and success from this game will set a precedent for companies to follow. As of yet most companies have chosen not to circumvent working with designers and copy their games based on legal allowances. This could be because they want to do the right thing or they are afraid of public outrage. We’ve seen investment companies buy major publishers and take drastic measures to “streamline” cost by doing things like firing internal design teams already. If a huge company like Asmodee, sees this game become successful and the bad publicity doesn’t outweigh the reward. Why wouldn’t they just start copying every well received game without the means for mass production or a sleek marketing campaign?
To me this one raised a completely different question as for me these are easily different enough esp when I compare it to other examples, but a key reason for me feeling that is that the essential experience of the game has been changed up a lot by the collisions and the component design (two space cars) and importantly that I think they’re just as important to the essential experience as the movement rules. On the thread i found myself pondering how reductive we can potentially get talking about game design as an isolated thing from development or somehow being about specific mechanics that almost certainly exist somewhere else too if you look hard enough - the true game is the whole game not specific parts. There are lots of other examples of games heavily inspired by others where the essential experience is also pretty much the same but with just a slight twist and iteration and in that space this seems a much bigger shift. For me that’s the test - if you change the essential experience of playing then it’s a different game.
Fluffy Logic: I think the argument that reaching out, that failing, then doing your own game is a bit of fluffy logic in my opinion. What you are saying is, if a game designer has a great idea for a game that is inspired by another, he actually goes to the previous designer, which is not even necessary, to try and make it a joint venture, but for one reason or another it fails, then that new designer is banned for life from ever producing his 'improved' game. That is so much fluffy logic you will be coughing up cat-hair-balls for years to come. You are effectively saying, TRYING to do the right thing with a joint venture makes you the bad guy. By your logic, if you had just ignored the previous designer and done the game anyway, then you are the good guy. It makes no sense to me.
I think that kind of argument could easily be applied to the other side. Mirroring the Fluffy Logic: What you are saying is, if someone reaches out to you for a small tweak redesign, you must accept their offer because they are trying to do the right thing. Because, otherwise you are banning them from ever producing an 'improved' game that you have not yet seen. And if you do not take their word, they can just tweak few things and put you out of equation by quoting your game as 'inspiration'. I hope this shows how one-sided justification misleads how not so simple things are.
@@guksungan1267 I am still not sure your logic is quite correct. You are missing one or more of the logic gates. There is no legal requirement to 'include' the original game designer if you intend to 'improve' a mechanic for a new game, but Rebellion did. The Powerboats guy has every right not to get involved with the new production for whatever reason they choose. That is what appears to have happened. There is still no 'fault' by anyone at this stage. If Rebellion choose to continue with their new improved design, they have every right to do so without the original designer. No one is still at fault. Rebellion had the right to do that right from the start whether they approached the original game designer or not. Rebellion are still not the bad guy at any stage. ... There are consequences with your present line of thought where Rebellion are being portrayed as the bad guys. All that will happen is companies will never again approach original designers if they want to improve a mechanic of a game because of a potential backlash from the public if collaboration fails. In my opinion, that is bad.... If I was an original game designer, I would like to be approached. I would push to get my name on the box, which reminds everyone I still exist, which in turn might help promote any other new designs I have. I would also push for a very small share of the royalties, where I have done very little new work to get them, just in case the game went viral.
@@jon7043 glad to hear your clarification, but I realize I am more confused on your stance. By “legal” and “no fault” do you mean that my comment above does not hold because it tries to protray good or bad buy when legally that is not so? But then when you mention you would push for royalties it sounds like you want the publisher to approach even if they don’t have legal obligations to.
I tend to think Duncan wanted to work with Corne based on Duncan's track record at Osprey, but the publisher he works for now decided against it. He just didn't want to lose his job.
I think that he has reached out and then used it anyway is unforgivable. Super poor form and is not only a terrible blight on his integrity, but sets a dangerous example for others to follow. It reminds me of the way David Sirlin used the entire core of En Garde for Flash Duel but didn’t originally acknowledge as you mention.
@@BenBoersma You don’t know what went on behind the scenes to know it’s unforgivable. The designer of powerboats hasn’t done anything with the game for a decade and a half. Hex based movement isn’t copyrighted and neither is having checkpoints in a game.
@warrensmith5066 doesn't matter, if the entire core gamer of powerboats is in Joyride and three intention was to licence it originally. It looks pretty bad and sets a dangerous precedent for all designers and companies. For years there has been a moral agreement on these things. Situations like this throw that out the window.
@ the entire game is in there because no matter how good the game is. It’s very basic. The designer has used the game as inspiration. They’ve then added collisions and weapons and made it their own. Somethings gone on behind the scenes and they couldn’t work together. Lorcana has mechanics from MTG. Is there outrage for that ? There’s a million battle royale games on pc and consoles. No one owns the rights to the concept of the game. They all make it their own around the same idea. Review bombing and getting upset over this like loads of people have done is pretty sad. It’s a 16 year old game that’s never had a reprint. So clearly the demand and fanbase for it is a fraction of the people that for no reason has gotten upset over something that doesn’t affect them in the slightest. Just a bunch of nerds sat at home getting sad on internet forums. If there was any grounds there. It would have its original designer taking joyride to court. Which they aren’t. Because they can’t.
@@warrensmith5066 tell me you aren't in the industry without telling me you aren't in the industry. There's a difference between legally and morally wrong. If you can't understand that and you think there's nothing wrong here, feel free to go and release a game the same as Magic the gathering but add your own thing on top, like a dice roll to add extra damage when a creature attacks. There totally different and just used information... You could even call it Magic the Grouping. It's just inspired by Magic the gathering, it's not legally the same.
Powerboats mechanic that is claimed to be original, is just a dice placement mechanic that is used in many Euro's. Including other game made by the creator of powerboats. In Powerboats its just used to move instead of gathering resources, or getting workers. Powerboats uses d3s, Joyride Uses d6s. At their core their just a dice placement mechanic. You can't make a copy of something when its already a copy of something else, claim one is unique to make it different, and then claim the other isn't because it isn't unique enough.
Thanks for the video. Before this controversy, I had only heard of Powerboats once, so I would categorize it as an indie game instead of a well-known classic. If Duncan had never talked with Corne and referenced Powerboats as inspiration, this probably wouldn’t be controversial.
Can the innovation be an original theme inspired by past mechanics? You could argue the innovation is introducing a new play style to a new audience (which can be good for the hobby).
This conversation comes up frequently in the table top rpg space. Could Wizards of the Coast kill the Dungeon and Dragons open game license and could a publisher just release the rules for D&D under a different name and terms for things (ie. Wizards and Wyverns) and avoid litigation? Generally the answer was "yes" you could. These conversations was usually about the little guy punching up at the corporation. But this can go both ways. The other side of the coin. There are beloved games that are out of print and don't get remade with a reskinning because the designer or publisher is sitting on it for whatever reason. Should a reskinned version of these games come to light? Even without the publishers or designers blessing?
WOC tried to kill the OGL. Legally they could not. However you would still have to watch straight coping from the rulebooks because that would be plagiarism. You would at minimum have to rewrite the same rules in different language.
Similar thing happened with FFG X-Wing and Wings of War. Best thing would’ve been for the designer of powerboats to beat them to the punch and make a reskin of powerboats with a racing demolition derby theme. He had a few years to think of and do that
Powerboats made Powerships in 2018. Which was a reskin of Powerboats but with spaceships. It didn't do well. The issue here is Powerboats has 1 mechanic similar to Joyride. Everthing else is inspired by other games. Its basically a mishmash of several games put together.
I just received joyride and I didn't even know powerboats existed. And to be honest, I'm happy I found this video after receiving joyride. Now I don't have to have complex thoughts about buying (or not buying) joyride...
I am fine with what has happened. This is no worse than Star Realms and Star Wars Deckbuilding game. It is no worse than Android Netrunner and Null-Signal Netrunner trying to keep the game alive when the original company just 'dumped' the game. However, in the latter case the potential doubling of prices (in the UK) next year going from a 'keeping it alive' to 'making a nice bit of cash' might be a step too far for my sense or morality. I'll see how it goes though, as I would still like to get into Netrunner and I think Null-Signal were/are doing a great job. I think there are ways original companies could 'keep games alive' with print on demand options (like Car Wars Vehicle Guide on Amazon UK), instead of just 'dumping' games people are still playing.
I absolutely disagree with the "it's a bad look" point. If i talk to a designer of a racing game about a possible collaboration should that preclude me from ever releasing my own racing game? Surely not? If talking to another designer means getting accused of theft if any of your games resemble one of theirs, that would mean it's incredibly risky to collaborate and everyone should strive to be a lone genius. That's not how games are made. Anyone who agrees that the two games are different enough to not be mere copies of each other should not have any problems with this situation. I think it's ridiculous that a game that you would be perfectly fine with if it's inspired by another game suddenly becomes problematic because the two designers talked about collaborating before.
I think if you talk to someone about using their game design and then stop, you now have a choice..ensure that whatever game you come up with looks noticeably different, or risk the public backlash. I don't think it would have taken a lot to step this back from being the exact same movement mechanism after trying to work with him on that exact game design.
@@BoardGameCoYou cant just hold someone hostage from improving on your game. Study both sides of IP law and you may come to a different conclusion. I could easily throw out there that it is a very bad look for a game reviewer to weigh in on this drama without having actually played both games.
@@grassCrow You absolutely can throw that out there. And as with most things in life, if your viewpoint has merit, than enough people will agree with you. As someone who has chosen to live a good portion of my life on the internet, I've learnt that I should always ignore the voices that are the exceptions, but when 10-20% of my audience feels differently than me...that's usually a good starting point for some introspection just in case. It doesn't mean people are right, but it's a good starting point towards that double check.
@ its not my goal to be popular. I think you made a grave mistake and are swaying people to wrongly hate on the developer . I like your channel otherwise.
Seems like Duncan's history of working with designers actually speaks against him. Why, if this is his known track record, did he not do so this time? If it is simply they couldn't come to terms it seems to set a concerning precedent whereby publishers can offer to work with someone, undercutting them to the point they don't agree to the contract and then later putting out a very similar game that seems to be approximately what would have been developed with the designer had the contract being signed. This puts so much pressure on designers to shut up and take the first deal they are offered; it at least facilitates predatory practices even if nothing unlawful has taken place.
Totally agree with your take. First of all since the contact was already there, that does not look good. Second: Powerboats wasnt very successful and I think that's the main difference to cases like Wizard or Dominion. I believe when you're heavily inspired by something very unknown and then making big money with it, the recognition shoud be much bigger. I wont jump into the discussion of 'copy or not' though, because solving that one could destroy parts of our cozy industry. But since it actually 'is' that friendly, i think Joyride took the wrong turn.
I agree that it wasn't a good look, but I do want to push back a little bit on the "Powerboats is super niche" aspect. Powerboats wasn't a super mega hit like Dominion, but it was a fairly successful game back in 2009. It got a couple awards, it got some buzz, I believe it sold out its original print run. All signs pointing to a successful game (not a mega hit, but a success). The Powerships kickstarter also hit its funding goals. If you read the BGG thread, there are a number of posters talking about how Powerboats was well known as one of the "less well-known racing games that lots of people still like."
I do think it's definitely less well known than most, but in a way that makes it feel worse for me. Being inspired by a massive hit that everyone knows about feels inevitable. Working with a designer of a relatively unknown title and then borrowing that later, feels a little worse.
I feel like its kind of ridiculous, because lets say Hasbro goes after Dice Throne for copying Yahtzee. Many people would be on Dice Throne's side because the " Game is different". Yet their on the opposite foot here just because Rebellion is the more successful company. Yet Joy Ride has more in common with Death Road All Stars then Power Boats. Their only harping on 1 mechanic which in power boats uses 3 sided dice, while in JoyRide it uses 6, and both effectively use a Dice Placement mechanic that's used in many Euro's. Fact of the matter is you get people copyrighting mechanics, you only have a handful of games left, which is why it isn't a thing.
I think there is 1 big piece of information that is missing. If he gives "credit to the designer" ONLY when there's a deal in place (so he would have to). Because under those circumstances "I always give credit when I'm contractually obligated to" reads a lot different at that point. If he's done it every time outside of that then I would be VERY hard pressed to think he had nefarious designs this time. Although I will agree that it's a bad look, and bad for the hobby either way
Cant just hold someone hostage from improving on your game. Thats why there are safety rails on intellectual property laws. Otherwise improvements wont exist. This needs to be seen as a legal issue and not a moral one. People need to move on in life.
What is even original about Powerboats? Hex grid map? Rolling to move? Turning costing a movement point? These are all used SOOO many times in many other games. Joyride is a great game. There is just as much different between the two as there is the same. Dungeon Karts also uses the shifting mechanic to speed up or slow down. And the way the creator of Powerboats has basically been throwning a tantrum in every social platform is quite shameful, and not how this type of dispute should be handled. Defamation is a real thing.
I think this happens way more than we realize. Many games borrow heavily from other games. Tend has so many elements and nomenclature from StarDew Valley. Shackleton Base borrows heavily from Anachrony. But I agree that the attempted collaboration makes this seem more egregious.
Thank you for making this video! You are the first and hopefully not the last to cover this scandal. I agree with your presentation, but for a seasoned game developer to do such a gross mistake is hard to believe… and even harder to condone. So I will side with David and give Goliath a bit of a hard “bad look”.
The biggest problem to me is that it's such a lose-lose situation for us in the hobby. On 1 hand if everyone still supports the new game we've now established a precedent and what's to stop large publishers from doing this more often. On the flip side, if the outcry becomes enough to really effect sales and profitability going forward, have we now created a situation where anytime a moderately successful game is released that resembles in the smallest way someone else's work are we going to go through this all over again? And if that happens do we get less new games available to avoid the controversy? Neither of these outcomes are good if you just love and want to play games. 😢
I don't get how anyone can defend the Joyride publisher. The fact that it's no illegal doesn't make it ok. This is a blatant ripoff that makes me not want to get anything from this publisher now or in the future. It's just s shitty behaviour that should not be rewarded. And make no mistake, normalizing this will make this happen again and again.
I am assuming you never played ether game. The games are so different that calling it a blatant ripoff is ridiculous. For 1 power boats uses d3s, while Joyride uses d6. You have 4 spots for locked dice in Joyride. Joyride also has movement mechanics when you crash into things. So if you think their is an issue, why don't you have an issue with the mechanic being in Euro's. Its just a Dice Placement Mechanic. You place dice down and then move in Power boats, instead of dice being placed down and getting resources.
You're right that it's not a good look but art/media/games steal from each other all the time and if the new iteration is better they usually get praised for it regardless. Don't see how this is any different. Think the "controversy" is overblown. Joyride is still a great game and this doesn't change that. Would've been waaay worse if Powerboats was still in development and then Joyride stole from it but it's been out since 2008.
@ Just found some : WO1995019209A1 Game assembly for playing rummy or similar games Micha Hertzano EP1595582A1 Tiles for domino or Rummikub like games Mariana Hertzano Micha Hertzano US6805351B2 Lawsuit board game, Tina Rae Eskreis Nelson US9345949B2 Priority 2013-03-15 • Filing 2014-03-14 • Grant 2016-05-24 • Publication 2016-05-24 Ted Andre Lucquito Gerard Ted Trading card game and method of play
@@BoardGameCo You couldn't patent a game rule, but you could patent a specific method for mechanically implementing that rule if it was sufficiently novel.
The "MtG owns tapping" thing is a patent. The patent has expired now, so it doesn't apply, but even then (as mentioned in the video) designers worked around it by describing "exhausting" or "kneeling" the card instead. I don't think such alternate descriptions were ever tested in court, but it does support the idea that even if you DO patent a game idea that probably won't stop someone from making a game mechanic which is basically the same thing but very slightly tweaked.
@@BoardGameCo You can patent an algorithm. This is in fact what most software patents are. A method of doing something on a computer. A mechanism for performing a game is the same thing, which is how MtG was actually patented. It's not just the game terms, it's the entire play procedure. Although the patent has since expired (patents are always for a limited time). On the other hand the strength of the patent relies on a number of factors. Just filing a patent does not guarantee that the patent can be upheld in court. This is particularly true in the US, where the USPTO got severely burned in the 1990s in legal cases concerning the validity of patents they refused to grant. They now accept all patent applications and leave it to the courts to decide on the validity of the patents (since the courts cannot be sued for making this decision). People have tried to patent all sorts of things (definitely stretching the idea of a mechanism), however the protection granted is generally based on the hourly billing rates of the lawyers that you get to fight/defend the patent.
Maybe they were in talk so he could use the name and bring the game out as a 2.0 version, then it fell flat and decided to just go with his own in the end.
I think you’re saying it’s worse that he reached out to the designer first (opposed to just publishing their design)? Feels like it’s better to at least attempt to compensate the inspiring designer.
I think what he's saying is that by reaching out to the designer first, it's clear that his intent was to make this game. Then when that didn't work, they just made it anyways.
There’s thousands of games out there. They all take ideas from each other and apply it to their own game. Board or video game. They all pinch and take mechanisms. They reached out. It didn’t work out. No one knows what happened and it’s only gained a lot of attention because it’s been a super popular game. If you’re going onto BGG to review bomb a game that you don’t own or haven’t played because of this. You need a bit of outside time.
@ basically identical. You mean they both have hexes ? What are the collision rules in powerboats ? If all games weren’t allowed to use game mechanics from another game, there wouldn’t be thousands of games out there. Even from simple things. Nemesis has noise tokens. So does Zombicide. Should that not be allowed ? Dungeon kart has hex based movement like powerboats. Should that also cause outrage ?
I think the thing I find most interesting, is the extreme certainty of both sides. Look at the comments here...half of them think it's crazy that there's even a conversation about whether any wrong was done and half think it's absolutely theft and a huge problem. I find it curious how polarizing and certain all sides are. Meanwhile I'm here taking a fairly middling stance of "not the best look but that's about it" and both sides are upset I'm not strongly on their side. It's almost as if this is a complicated subject without a clear and obvious answer.
@@BoardGameCo There is a clear answer ... study why IP law exists and you'll find it. The immorality of using someone else's idea does not exist outside of IP law, it is either legal or illegal. It malum prohibitive, not malum per se. Just because you're the first person to do something doesn't mean everyone afterwards has to pay you to do it also, that's absurd, and that person is a troll. IP law exists to promote incentive to create new things and has its limits. Outside of IP law its immoral to demand that someone can't do something simply because you did it first. That is called being a Troll.
The ironic thing is that Corne’s thread put Joyride on my radar and got me to buy it (before looking into the controversy) I don’t think I’d ever buy a game simply about powerboat racing, but - even if I did - it seems like there are no copies of Powerboats “competing” with Joyride on the market… Maybe a Rio Grande or AEG will take a chance on Corne with a small print run🤷♂️
I personally choose not to buy joyride or any other game from this wanna be designer duncan and from the company he works for. That is what solves this problem. Save a buck and go out of business.
My concern here is that public response and success from this game will set a precedent for companies to follow. As of yet most companies have chosen not to circumvent working with designers and copy their games based on legal allowances. This could be because they want to do the right thing or they are afraid of public outrage. We’ve seen investment companies buy major publishers and take drastic measures to “streamline” cost by doing things like firing internal design teams already. If a huge company like Asmodee, sees this game become successful and the bad publicity doesn’t outweigh the reward. Why wouldn’t they just start copying every well received game without the means for mass production or a sleek marketing campaign?
To me this one raised a completely different question as for me these are easily different enough esp when I compare it to other examples, but a key reason for me feeling that is that the essential experience of the game has been changed up a lot by the collisions and the component design (two space cars) and importantly that I think they’re just as important to the essential experience as the movement rules.
On the thread i found myself pondering how reductive we can potentially get talking about game design as an isolated thing from development or somehow being about specific mechanics that almost certainly exist somewhere else too if you look hard enough - the true game is the whole game not specific parts. There are lots of other examples of games heavily inspired by others where the essential experience is also pretty much the same but with just a slight twist and iteration and in that space this seems a much bigger shift. For me that’s the test - if you change the essential experience of playing then it’s a different game.
Fluffy Logic: I think the argument that reaching out, that failing, then doing your own game is a bit of fluffy logic in my opinion. What you are saying is, if a game designer has a great idea for a game that is inspired by another, he actually goes to the previous designer, which is not even necessary, to try and make it a joint venture, but for one reason or another it fails, then that new designer is banned for life from ever producing his 'improved' game. That is so much fluffy logic you will be coughing up cat-hair-balls for years to come. You are effectively saying, TRYING to do the right thing with a joint venture makes you the bad guy. By your logic, if you had just ignored the previous designer and done the game anyway, then you are the good guy. It makes no sense to me.
I think that kind of argument could easily be applied to the other side.
Mirroring the Fluffy Logic: What you are saying is, if someone reaches out to you for a small tweak redesign, you must accept their offer because they are trying to do the right thing. Because, otherwise you are banning them from ever producing an 'improved' game that you have not yet seen. And if you do not take their word, they can just tweak few things and put you out of equation by quoting your game as 'inspiration'.
I hope this shows how one-sided justification misleads how not so simple things are.
@@guksungan1267 I am still not sure your logic is quite correct. You are missing one or more of the logic gates. There is no legal requirement to 'include' the original game designer if you intend to 'improve' a mechanic for a new game, but Rebellion did. The Powerboats guy has every right not to get involved with the new production for whatever reason they choose. That is what appears to have happened. There is still no 'fault' by anyone at this stage. If Rebellion choose to continue with their new improved design, they have every right to do so without the original designer. No one is still at fault. Rebellion had the right to do that right from the start whether they approached the original game designer or not. Rebellion are still not the bad guy at any stage. ... There are consequences with your present line of thought where Rebellion are being portrayed as the bad guys. All that will happen is companies will never again approach original designers if they want to improve a mechanic of a game because of a potential backlash from the public if collaboration fails. In my opinion, that is bad.... If I was an original game designer, I would like to be approached. I would push to get my name on the box, which reminds everyone I still exist, which in turn might help promote any other new designs I have. I would also push for a very small share of the royalties, where I have done very little new work to get them, just in case the game went viral.
@@jon7043 glad to hear your clarification, but I realize I am more confused on your stance.
By “legal” and “no fault” do you mean that my comment above does not hold because it tries to protray good or bad buy when legally that is not so?
But then when you mention you would push for royalties it sounds like you want the publisher to approach even if they don’t have legal obligations to.
Thank you provided a thoughtful opinion into the discussion that allows room for grace on both sides.
Joyride is one of the most fun , simple to learn yet deep games I’ve played in years.
Its brilliant
Thank you for covering this!
Absolutely 🙂
I tend to think Duncan wanted to work with Corne based on Duncan's track record at Osprey, but the publisher he works for now decided against it. He just didn't want to lose his job.
I think that he has reached out and then used it anyway is unforgivable. Super poor form and is not only a terrible blight on his integrity, but sets a dangerous example for others to follow.
It reminds me of the way David Sirlin used the entire core of En Garde for Flash Duel but didn’t originally acknowledge as you mention.
@@BenBoersma You don’t know what went on behind the scenes to know it’s unforgivable. The designer of powerboats hasn’t done anything with the game for a decade and a half.
Hex based movement isn’t copyrighted and neither is having checkpoints in a game.
@warrensmith5066 doesn't matter, if the entire core gamer of powerboats is in Joyride and three intention was to licence it originally. It looks pretty bad and sets a dangerous precedent for all designers and companies.
For years there has been a moral agreement on these things. Situations like this throw that out the window.
@ the entire game is in there because no matter how good the game is. It’s very basic.
The designer has used the game as inspiration.
They’ve then added collisions and weapons and made it their own.
Somethings gone on behind the scenes and they couldn’t work together.
Lorcana has mechanics from MTG. Is there outrage for that ?
There’s a million battle royale games on pc and consoles. No one owns the rights to the concept of the game. They all make it their own around the same idea.
Review bombing and getting upset over this like loads of people have done is pretty sad. It’s a 16 year old game that’s never had a reprint. So clearly the demand and fanbase for it is a fraction of the people that for no reason has gotten upset over something that doesn’t affect them in the slightest.
Just a bunch of nerds sat at home getting sad on internet forums.
If there was any grounds there. It would have its original designer taking joyride to court. Which they aren’t. Because they can’t.
@@warrensmith5066 tell me you aren't in the industry without telling me you aren't in the industry.
There's a difference between legally and morally wrong. If you can't understand that and you think there's nothing wrong here, feel free to go and release a game the same as Magic the gathering but add your own thing on top, like a dice roll to add extra damage when a creature attacks. There totally different and just used information... You could even call it Magic the Grouping. It's just inspired by Magic the gathering, it's not legally the same.
Powerboats mechanic that is claimed to be original, is just a dice placement mechanic that is used in many Euro's. Including other game made by the creator of powerboats. In Powerboats its just used to move instead of gathering resources, or getting workers. Powerboats uses d3s, Joyride Uses d6s. At their core their just a dice placement mechanic. You can't make a copy of something when its already a copy of something else, claim one is unique to make it different, and then claim the other isn't because it isn't unique enough.
Thanks for the video. Before this controversy, I had only heard of Powerboats once, so I would categorize it as an indie game instead of a well-known classic. If Duncan had never talked with Corne and referenced Powerboats as inspiration, this probably wouldn’t be controversial.
Can the innovation be an original theme inspired by past mechanics? You could argue the innovation is introducing a new play style to a new audience (which can be good for the hobby).
This conversation comes up frequently in the table top rpg space. Could Wizards of the Coast kill the Dungeon and Dragons open game license and could a publisher just release the rules for D&D under a different name and terms for things (ie. Wizards and Wyverns) and avoid litigation? Generally the answer was "yes" you could. These conversations was usually about the little guy punching up at the corporation. But this can go both ways.
The other side of the coin. There are beloved games that are out of print and don't get remade with a reskinning because the designer or publisher is sitting on it for whatever reason. Should a reskinned version of these games come to light? Even without the publishers or designers blessing?
WOC tried to kill the OGL. Legally they could not.
However you would still have to watch straight coping from the rulebooks because that would be plagiarism. You would at minimum have to rewrite the same rules in different language.
Similar thing happened with FFG X-Wing and Wings of War. Best thing would’ve been for the designer of powerboats to beat them to the punch and make a reskin of powerboats with a racing demolition derby theme. He had a few years to think of and do that
Powerboats made Powerships in 2018. Which was a reskin of Powerboats but with spaceships. It didn't do well. The issue here is Powerboats has 1 mechanic similar to Joyride. Everthing else is inspired by other games. Its basically a mishmash of several games put together.
I just received joyride and I didn't even know powerboats existed. And to be honest, I'm happy I found this video after receiving joyride. Now I don't have to have complex thoughts about buying (or not buying) joyride...
I am fine with what has happened. This is no worse than Star Realms and Star Wars Deckbuilding game. It is no worse than Android Netrunner and Null-Signal Netrunner trying to keep the game alive when the original company just 'dumped' the game. However, in the latter case the potential doubling of prices (in the UK) next year going from a 'keeping it alive' to 'making a nice bit of cash' might be a step too far for my sense or morality. I'll see how it goes though, as I would still like to get into Netrunner and I think Null-Signal were/are doing a great job. I think there are ways original companies could 'keep games alive' with print on demand options (like Car Wars Vehicle Guide on Amazon UK), instead of just 'dumping' games people are still playing.
I absolutely disagree with the "it's a bad look" point. If i talk to a designer of a racing game about a possible collaboration should that preclude me from ever releasing my own racing game? Surely not? If talking to another designer means getting accused of theft if any of your games resemble one of theirs, that would mean it's incredibly risky to collaborate and everyone should strive to be a lone genius. That's not how games are made.
Anyone who agrees that the two games are different enough to not be mere copies of each other should not have any problems with this situation. I think it's ridiculous that a game that you would be perfectly fine with if it's inspired by another game suddenly becomes problematic because the two designers talked about collaborating before.
I think if you talk to someone about using their game design and then stop, you now have a choice..ensure that whatever game you come up with looks noticeably different, or risk the public backlash.
I don't think it would have taken a lot to step this back from being the exact same movement mechanism after trying to work with him on that exact game design.
@@BoardGameCoYou cant just hold someone hostage from improving on your game. Study both sides of IP law and you may come to a different conclusion. I could easily throw out there that it is a very bad look for a game reviewer to weigh in on this drama without having actually played both games.
@@grassCrow You absolutely can throw that out there. And as with most things in life, if your viewpoint has merit, than enough people will agree with you.
As someone who has chosen to live a good portion of my life on the internet, I've learnt that I should always ignore the voices that are the exceptions, but when 10-20% of my audience feels differently than me...that's usually a good starting point for some introspection just in case. It doesn't mean people are right, but it's a good starting point towards that double check.
@ its not my goal to be popular. I think you made a grave mistake and are swaying people to wrongly hate on the developer . I like your channel otherwise.
Duncan is right. Corne does not legally “own” anything to be “stolen” here. You can’t steal something in the public domain.
Seems like Duncan's history of working with designers actually speaks against him. Why, if this is his known track record, did he not do so this time?
If it is simply they couldn't come to terms it seems to set a concerning precedent whereby publishers can offer to work with someone, undercutting them to the point they don't agree to the contract and then later putting out a very similar game that seems to be approximately what would have been developed with the designer had the contract being signed. This puts so much pressure on designers to shut up and take the first deal they are offered; it at least facilitates predatory practices even if nothing unlawful has taken place.
Totally agree with your take. First of all since the contact was already there, that does not look good. Second: Powerboats wasnt very successful and I think that's the main difference to cases like Wizard or Dominion. I believe when you're heavily inspired by something very unknown and then making big money with it, the recognition shoud be much bigger.
I wont jump into the discussion of 'copy or not' though, because solving that one could destroy parts of our cozy industry. But since it actually 'is' that friendly, i think Joyride took the wrong turn.
I agree that it wasn't a good look, but I do want to push back a little bit on the "Powerboats is super niche" aspect. Powerboats wasn't a super mega hit like Dominion, but it was a fairly successful game back in 2009. It got a couple awards, it got some buzz, I believe it sold out its original print run. All signs pointing to a successful game (not a mega hit, but a success). The Powerships kickstarter also hit its funding goals.
If you read the BGG thread, there are a number of posters talking about how Powerboats was well known as one of the "less well-known racing games that lots of people still like."
I do think it's definitely less well known than most, but in a way that makes it feel worse for me. Being inspired by a massive hit that everyone knows about feels inevitable. Working with a designer of a relatively unknown title and then borrowing that later, feels a little worse.
I feel like its kind of ridiculous, because lets say Hasbro goes after Dice Throne for copying Yahtzee. Many people would be on Dice Throne's side because the " Game is different". Yet their on the opposite foot here just because Rebellion is the more successful company. Yet Joy Ride has more in common with Death Road All Stars then Power Boats. Their only harping on 1 mechanic which in power boats uses 3 sided dice, while in JoyRide it uses 6, and both effectively use a Dice Placement mechanic that's used in many Euro's. Fact of the matter is you get people copyrighting mechanics, you only have a handful of games left, which is why it isn't a thing.
I think there is 1 big piece of information that is missing. If he gives "credit to the designer" ONLY when there's a deal in place (so he would have to). Because under those circumstances "I always give credit when I'm contractually obligated to" reads a lot different at that point. If he's done it every time outside of that then I would be VERY hard pressed to think he had nefarious designs this time. Although I will agree that it's a bad look, and bad for the hobby either way
Where was the outrage when Star Wars The Deckbuilding Game straight out copied Star Realms?
Daily fix of what about Ian - check.
Cant just hold someone hostage from improving on your game. Thats why there are safety rails on intellectual property laws. Otherwise improvements wont exist. This needs to be seen as a legal issue and not a moral one. People need to move on in life.
As always - Humans will copy each other more explicitly and directly than AI ever will.
What is even original about Powerboats? Hex grid map? Rolling to move? Turning costing a movement point? These are all used SOOO many times in many other games. Joyride is a great game. There is just as much different between the two as there is the same. Dungeon Karts also uses the shifting mechanic to speed up or slow down. And the way the creator of Powerboats has basically been throwning a tantrum in every social platform is quite shameful, and not how this type of dispute should be handled. Defamation is a real thing.
You say "Turning costing a movement point", but that isn't a part of the Joyride rules, so not in Powerboats/Powerships too.
I think this happens way more than we realize. Many games borrow heavily from other games. Tend has so many elements and nomenclature from StarDew Valley. Shackleton Base borrows heavily from Anachrony. But I agree that the attempted collaboration makes this seem more egregious.
Thank you for making this video! You are the first and hopefully not the last to cover this scandal. I agree with your presentation, but for a seasoned game developer to do such a gross mistake is hard to believe… and even harder to condone. So I will side with David and give Goliath a bit of a hard “bad look”.
The biggest problem to me is that it's such a lose-lose situation for us in the hobby. On 1 hand if everyone still supports the new game we've now established a precedent and what's to stop large publishers from doing this more often. On the flip side, if the outcry becomes enough to really effect sales and profitability going forward, have we now created a situation where anytime a moderately successful game is released that resembles in the smallest way someone else's work are we going to go through this all over again? And if that happens do we get less new games available to avoid the controversy? Neither of these outcomes are good if you just love and want to play games. 😢
Good thing that you cannot copy game mechanics. Otherwise so many great games would've never been published.
I don't get how anyone can defend the Joyride publisher. The fact that it's no illegal doesn't make it ok. This is a blatant ripoff that makes me not want to get anything from this publisher now or in the future. It's just s shitty behaviour that should not be rewarded. And make no mistake, normalizing this will make this happen again and again.
I am assuming you never played ether game. The games are so different that calling it a blatant ripoff is ridiculous. For 1 power boats uses d3s, while Joyride uses d6. You have 4 spots for locked dice in Joyride. Joyride also has movement mechanics when you crash into things. So if you think their is an issue, why don't you have an issue with the mechanic being in Euro's. Its just a Dice Placement Mechanic. You place dice down and then move in Power boats, instead of dice being placed down and getting resources.
You're right that it's not a good look but art/media/games steal from each other all the time and if the new iteration is better they usually get praised for it regardless. Don't see how this is any different. Think the "controversy" is overblown. Joyride is still a great game and this doesn't change that.
Would've been waaay worse if Powerboats was still in development and then Joyride stole from it but it's been out since 2008.
You can patent game mechanics but don’t think it ever happens due to costs.
I was under the impression you couldn't.
@ Just found some : WO1995019209A1 Game assembly for playing rummy or similar games Micha Hertzano
EP1595582A1 Tiles for domino or Rummikub like games Mariana Hertzano Micha Hertzano
US6805351B2 Lawsuit board game, Tina Rae Eskreis Nelson
US9345949B2 Priority 2013-03-15 • Filing 2014-03-14 • Grant 2016-05-24 • Publication 2016-05-24 Ted Andre Lucquito Gerard Ted Trading card game and method of play
@@BoardGameCo You couldn't patent a game rule, but you could patent a specific method for mechanically implementing that rule if it was sufficiently novel.
The "MtG owns tapping" thing is a patent. The patent has expired now, so it doesn't apply, but even then (as mentioned in the video) designers worked around it by describing "exhausting" or "kneeling" the card instead. I don't think such alternate descriptions were ever tested in court, but it does support the idea that even if you DO patent a game idea that probably won't stop someone from making a game mechanic which is basically the same thing but very slightly tweaked.
@@BoardGameCo You can patent an algorithm. This is in fact what most software patents are. A method of doing something on a computer. A mechanism for performing a game is the same thing, which is how MtG was actually patented. It's not just the game terms, it's the entire play procedure. Although the patent has since expired (patents are always for a limited time).
On the other hand the strength of the patent relies on a number of factors. Just filing a patent does not guarantee that the patent can be upheld in court. This is particularly true in the US, where the USPTO got severely burned in the 1990s in legal cases concerning the validity of patents they refused to grant. They now accept all patent applications and leave it to the courts to decide on the validity of the patents (since the courts cannot be sued for making this decision).
People have tried to patent all sorts of things (definitely stretching the idea of a mechanism), however the protection granted is generally based on the hourly billing rates of the lawyers that you get to fight/defend the patent.
MTG is a good reference. There have been 100’s of TCGs and Richard Garfield only gets paid for M:TG
Maybe they were in talk so he could use the name and bring the game out as a 2.0 version, then it fell flat and decided to just go with his own in the end.
I think you’re saying it’s worse that he reached out to the designer first (opposed to just publishing their design)? Feels like it’s better to at least attempt to compensate the inspiring designer.
I think what he's saying is that by reaching out to the designer first, it's clear that his intent was to make this game. Then when that didn't work, they just made it anyways.
@@buddywahlquist2467 but it looks like it wasn’t - looks like originally they were just exploring relicsensing
There’s thousands of games out there. They all take ideas from each other and apply it to their own game.
Board or video game. They all pinch and take mechanisms.
They reached out. It didn’t work out. No one knows what happened and it’s only gained a lot of attention because it’s been a super popular game.
If you’re going onto BGG to review bomb a game that you don’t own or haven’t played because of this. You need a bit of outside time.
I'm sorry but the game system is basically identical... This can't be reduced to "everything is a remix"
It would be way to easy...
@ basically identical. You mean they both have hexes ?
What are the collision rules in powerboats ?
If all games weren’t allowed to use game mechanics from another game, there wouldn’t be thousands of games out there.
Even from simple things. Nemesis has noise tokens. So does Zombicide. Should that not be allowed ?
Dungeon kart has hex based movement like powerboats. Should that also cause outrage ?
Trying to be a patent troll without even owning a patent and you act like he is a victim. Crazy world we live in.
I think the thing I find most interesting, is the extreme certainty of both sides. Look at the comments here...half of them think it's crazy that there's even a conversation about whether any wrong was done and half think it's absolutely theft and a huge problem.
I find it curious how polarizing and certain all sides are. Meanwhile I'm here taking a fairly middling stance of "not the best look but that's about it" and both sides are upset I'm not strongly on their side.
It's almost as if this is a complicated subject without a clear and obvious answer.
@@BoardGameCo There is a clear answer ... study why IP law exists and you'll find it. The immorality of using someone else's idea does not exist outside of IP law, it is either legal or illegal. It malum prohibitive, not malum per se. Just because you're the first person to do something doesn't mean everyone afterwards has to pay you to do it also, that's absurd, and that person is a troll. IP law exists to promote incentive to create new things and has its limits. Outside of IP law its immoral to demand that someone can't do something simply because you did it first. That is called being a Troll.
@@BoardGameCo Of course I for example don't agree with that. ;) But well-said!
This a half hour of saying nothing
Weird.... I'm pretty sure I summarized a topic, gave key points on both sides and expressed my own opinion.
I think you watched the wrong video.
The ironic thing is that Corne’s thread put Joyride on my radar and got me to buy it (before looking into the controversy)
I don’t think I’d ever buy a game simply about powerboat racing, but - even if I did - it seems like there are no copies of Powerboats “competing” with Joyride on the market…
Maybe a Rio Grande or AEG will take a chance on Corne with a small print run🤷♂️
Yeah that thread definitely helped elevate both games this week.
I personally choose not to buy joyride or any other game from this wanna be designer duncan and from the company he works for. That is what solves this problem. Save a buck and go out of business.
Its the same game and he didn't give credit to the original designer. So he stole it.