Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
arrowPress Releases
October 30, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


King IPO is going ahead, under ticker symbol 'KING'
King IPO is going ahead, under ticker symbol 'KING'
February 18, 2014 | By Mike Rose




Social games giant King today took an extra step towards an initial public offering, as the company filed registration paperwork with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

There were originally murmurs in September last year that the Candy Crush Saga company was filing for an IPO. Now the company has filed its Form F-1, and showed its intent to list ordinary shares on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "KING."

King has not yet stated how many shares will be offered, what the price range for the offering will be, or when it's going to happen -- but the newly filed form suggests that the company is looking to raise up to $500 million.

The company will be hoping that its latest financial figures will spur potential investors into action. In 2013, King recorded revenues of $1.88 billion, up from $165 million in 2012, and profits of $568 million, up from $8 million in 2012.

Notably, as seen in the provided charts below, King's revenues and profits were actually down in the fourth quarter (compared to the previous quarter). This signals King's first decline in earnings since its original boom around a year ago.

king down.jpg

IPO risks

As part of its IPO filing, King listed various risks that come with investment, including the fact that "We have experienced significant rapid growth in our operations, and we cannot assure you that we will effectively manage our growth."

The company said that, to effectively keep its business on top form, it will need to continue to improve on its games and systems. "If we fail to do so, our ability to grow our business could be harmed," it adds.

The company also pointed out that "A small number of games currently generate a substantial majority of our revenue." Indeed, Candy Crush Saga, Pet Rescue Saga and Farm Heroes Saga accounted for 95 percent of King's total gross bookings in the fourth quarter of 2013 -- while Candy Crush Saga alone accounted for 78 percent. (King defines gross bookings as "the total amount paid by our users for virtual items and for access to skill tournaments.")

King's plan is to diversify its games catalogue in the coming months. "We must develop new games and enhance our existing games so that our players will continue to play our games and make purchases of virtual items within our games," it adds.

King has been in the news a lot recently, of course, due to numerous trademarking moves and cloning claims.


Related Jobs

Sega Networks Inc.
Sega Networks Inc. — San Francisco, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Mobile Game Engineer
Intel
Intel — Santa Clara, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Rendering Research Scientist
Intel
Intel — Folsom, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Senior Graphics Software Engineer
Pocket Gems
Pocket Gems — San Francisco, California, United States
[10.30.14]

Software Engineer - Mobile, Backend & Tools










Comments


Gurinder Singh
profile image
It's make or break time. After the Zynga catastrophe, the whole industry NEEDS this IPO to be a big success. Raising funding is going to get VERY difficult otherwise.

I hope, for the sake of all of us, that King does deliver another hit as big as Candy Crush!

John Paduch
profile image
...

Amir Barak
profile image
@Paduch
Understatement of the year mate.

Eric Finlay
profile image
@Gurinder

I couldn't disagree more. This industry does not need a successful company built on dishonesty and manipulation. This industry does not want a flash-in-the-pan company to be the flagship. Maybe if it burns people won't try it again, which would be a good thing.

Katy Smith
profile image
I don't think I necessarily agree with this, industry-wide. If King's IPO fails, it could be problematic for web / phone casual F2P games, but I think (I hope!) investors are wise enough to see the differences between Candy Crush Saga, League of Legends, Ridiculous Fishing, Broken Age, and Call of Duty.

Alan Boody
profile image
All investors see are $$$. If it doesn't millions of $$$ it doesn't get funding. So, they'll chase the next Candy Crush Saga, like they chased Zynga, and WoW before them.

Elijah Blackwell
profile image
I think a lot of knowledgeable investors see this as Zynga II, so I'm not sure how big of an impact that is going to have on the vast majority of developers seeking funding. Can anyone with recent experience talk about the direct impact of Zynga I on their fundraising efforts?

I think even a very bad IPO is still very good news for investors. Look at Apax's investment eight and a half years ago that has made them a huge pile of cash, and is poised to be worth several billion if the IPO is successful. They could end up with 100x returns in less than a decade.

Josh Neff
profile image
Are you serious? The whole industry's ability to get funding does NOT hinge on King's ability to get an IPO off the ground. In fact, King is significantly less deserving of a successful IPO than numerous other companies. That and any investor worth their salt would likely see that King ltd has cooked its books and likely doesn't have the assets it's claiming... that and the veritable PR poo-storm that's been brewing will also chase away investors.

Nooh Ha
profile image
That is quite the accusation there, Josh. Care to back your fraud accusations up?

Alex Nichiporchik
profile image
All the cloning fiasco aside, it's interesting to see King admit the risks involved. People get sick of more of the same, so how will they keep the audience engaged and not move onto the next big thing?

... Unless they develop the next big thing

Adam Bishop
profile image
I think Matt Yglesias nails it on this topic. King is trying to cash out - http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/02/18/candy_crush_ipo_do
_not_buy.html

Luis Blondet
profile image
I guess they didn't learn from Zynga, or maybe they did, but perhaps investors that do not know videogames beyond Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros. haven't.

When a company gets rich with unethical values and principles, it will not last. It's nice for some quick, short-sighted gain, but not for the long term. It eventually reaps what it sows and if what is sowing is a corporate culture of lying, cheating, bullying, exploiting and all manners of scumbaggery, it will fall.

If they ripped off their players and indie game devs, they will rip off their shareholders, employees and partners.

Evil is just not sustainable.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
I don't see what they have done that is unethical. They haven't done anything illegal and none of the players are forced to spend money.

They have over 100 million people playing their games every day, if they were as exploitative as you say surely that wouldn't be the case.

Elijah Blackwell
profile image
http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/13/candy-crush-saga-makers-to-sue-game
-they-copied-4303096/

http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied

Just good business? Something we should aspire to?

Ian Griffiths
profile image
I don't know much about the law but that seems like a Trademark dispute, I didn't see much about suing going on other than the owner of CandySwipe supposedly suing King.

I can see that there is some weirdness going on with Pac-Avoid but I don't know the details and it seems to involve third parties. Again, you can't own a game idea and look-and-feel is hard to go after.

And no, I don't work for King.

Elijah Blackwell
profile image
I'm not a lawyer, either. Also, I haven't personally verified any of their behavior/actions.

But, I think their approach to brand-building has pitted them directly against smaller developers that certainly aren't trying to clone their products, or profit off of their IP. I'm not sure I like the idea of seeing such a large company using that approach in the casual space where lots of indie developers certainly have a chance at making a living.

Is all of this bad for the game development industry, or just another product of that segment maturing?

Alan Boody
profile image
@Ian

You're joking, right?

Ian Griffiths
profile image
@Alan, not at all. I think a lot of the opinion in this areas isn't based upon well established facts, it all seems to be hyperbole. To my knowledge King haven't actually shut anyone down or stopped them making games, most of this stuff is about trademarks which are a specific area of Intellectual Property.

As far as King goes I don't see what they do as unethical, particularly around the monetization side of things. I think the creation of games is a little murkier but I would just point to the fact that being the first to have an idea doesn't mean that you own it.

Almost all games build on the ideas and successes of others, if they didn't we wouldn't have many of the great games we do today. If you actually play Candy Crush Saga you will see that there is a lot more depth in that game than Bejeweled, they really did innovate on the gameplay in a lot of areas.

Kaze Kai
profile image
Glad to see that the news of that game basically ripping off another one isn't so contained that people overlook it entirely. Personally I hope the guy responsible for the game they stole sues the hell out of them and wins.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
You can't legally own a game idea, otherwise we would never have moved on from Pong.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Ian,

You can't deny that King copied Runsome's game called Candyswipe that was released two years before Candy Crush Saga. Nor can you deny that King basically cried foul when other companies did the EXACT SAME THING they did. Then, used that as an excuse to gain control of the "candy" mark that they have no business having.

Additionally, you cannot deny that King is pursuing the mark to "saga," which none of their games have remotely any connection to and has existed in the video game industry for well over a decade (along with Candy).

So, just because they're not breaking the law doesn't mean they hadn't acted unethical. In fact, they bought an older game with ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STYLE of game-play in order to invalidate Runsome's "Candyswipe" copyright; money or position they wouldn't have had if they hadn't of first completely ripped their game from Candyswipe.

Martin Svensson
profile image
Are you serious Alan, or do you just don't like successful companies?

Have you played CandySwipe and Candy Crush Saga? The games are nothing alike. Completely different art. Different game-play where CandySwipe is a linker and Candy Crush a switcher. Candy Crush is played by progressing through levels. The only similarity between the games is that they both use the word "candy". And we know what you think about trying to protect that word, so why do you side with Runsome on this one? The two games are no more alike than Quake and Battlefield 3. Claiming that King copied that game is a real joke.

King have protected their trademarks including the word "saga" against Banner Saga. That is how trademarks work. If you bothered reading King's side of the story you would understand this better.

Yes, apparently they bought an older trademark for a game that has entirely different style of game-play than CandySwipe. Well, CandySwipe has entierly different style of game-play than Candy Crush Saga, so the way I'm looking at it they are just fighting back against a trademark troll (Runsome). If you cannot read between the lines in Runsomes story and realise that he is only seeking attention and cash, you are clearly beeing fooled by the newsstories media is publishing just to get readers rather than telling an objective truth.

Sorry - but I just get tired of everyone in the industry jumping on the bandwagon to attack King when they don't understand the sequence of events or chooses to side with anything that is against King just because they are successful or because you don't understand how the casual games industry works.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
@Alan, I would argue that Candy Crush Saga is entirely different in terms of gameplay to CandySwipe. I'd argue the difference is bigger than say, Sega's Columns and Tetris.

I think that King are free to pursue Trademarks for whatever they want, such is the nature of the law. They have a connection to both Saga and Candy by the fact they reference them within their games, that is sufficient. I mean, here we are complaining about copyrighting words like 'Candy' and 'Saga' but I don't hear people moaning about 'Windows', 'Office', 'Chrome', 'Fox', 'Virgin' and so on. Companies trademark everyday words all the time, it's just how business works.

I don't really see where CandySwipe is coming from as the developer tried to sue King over Candy Crush Saga but complains when King rather cleverly turned the tables on him. You can't have it both ways, suing people for use of a word but then crying foul when it legitimately happens back to you.

Go play the two game for long enough and you will see that although they appear to look similar that the gameplay is different. I'd argue that King didn't ride to success off the back of CandySwipe, they're merely trying to stop others doing it to them. Sadly Trademark law requires that they actively defend their position and that's what they're doing. If they didn't then potentially someone could come along and sue them for a lot of money. If you want to be annoyed with someone, make it the legal system.

Josh Neff
profile image
I wish you were right, but unfortunately, these days, you can. Look up Magic the Gathering and the Term "Collectible card games". You'll find out very quickly that anything that claims to be a collectible card game must first ask permission of WoTC to exist or run the risk of being sued into non existence.

Jeff Alexander
profile image
Josh Neff: "You'll find out very quickly that anything that claims to be a collectible card game must first ask permission of WoTC to exist or run the risk of being sued into non existence."

That's a rare case of a patent being involved in game design. I'm not sure how apt the analogy is.

It's also hardly the case that no one has made a CCG since 1997.

Masaru Wada
profile image
You keep saying that, but you're forgetting King has a hypocritical stance on this. They say you shouldn't copy games and rabidly go after those that seemingly do, and yet their own flagship game is a blatant rip off.

How are you not getting this?

Ian Griffiths
profile image
@Masaru, I find it interesting that you think I don't understand the stance of most people here. I can see the hypocracy but I blame the law, not King.

I've already covered this in response to the Alan but this is just a requirement of Trademark law. King are somewhat forced to actively and zealously protect these terms so that they can stop others copying them, riding their coattails and then turning the tables by forcing King to stop using the terms. Geoffry Tim's article on LazyGamer.com explains this quite well - http://www.lazygamer.net/general-news/dont-blame-king-blame-trade
mark-law/

Also, like I said with CandySwipe, that developer tried to sue King using these exact laws and then cried foul when the tables were turned on him by an even earlier game. I can appreciate that this is contentious as King purchased that title but with the CandySwipe developer I'd say 'Live by the sword...'.

As I said before, being the first to come up with an idea doesn't mean you own it. If someone has the same or a similar idea along with better execution idea do they not deserve to profit? If this were not the case we probably wouldn't have many of the great games and franchises we do today.

Amir Barak
profile image
@Ian
"I can see the hypocracy but I blame the law, not King"
The two concepts are not orthogonal. The law might be broken but King are still assholes. See, not that hard.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Ian

Those marks like "Windows," "Chrome," "Fox," "Virgin," and so forth actually make sense as marks. It's the same thing with "apple." There's no obvious connection between the words and what area they're trademarked in. If, say, Microsoft wanted to trademark "Windows" in windows selling and installation industry then it wouldn't be granted. "Chrome, "Fox," and "Virgin," are arbitrary marks, like "Apple." "Windows" is a suggestive mark.

King, if they had been the first to create a game with word "candy" in it then applied for the mark then they would have an argument that they have the right to that mark - it would have been arbitrary or perhaps even 'suggestive'. However, "candy" has existed in video game titles as early as the 90's.

"Saga" is completely different as a mark. Saga is a general term that describes an epic tale - mainly involving vikings. It's been a mark used in stories, video games, and other media for, well, hundreds of years.

To give the "candy" and "saga" marks to King is basically saying, "Hey, despite many creative works throughout history King has the right to those names in creative works."

King has every right to own the mark "Candy Crush Saga." They have every right to defend that mark: like, say, if someone were to name their game "Candy Crush" or "Candy Saga." But, to challenge the mark "The Banner Saga," is King saying they have all rights to the mark "saga" no matter how it's used. The same goes for "candy."

What happens when Hasbro decides to create another "Candyland" video game on a mobile platform that features candy?

What does King do? If they don't 'defend' their mark then they'll 'lose' it. Which is their argument. But, imagine them defending their mark against Hasbro when it pertains to "Candyland." Does King still have the right to the mark "Candy?"

Then, to say that Stoic and their mark "The Banner Saga" is just casualties of the trademark system doesn't make it right or ethical.

Martin Svensson
profile image
You have a few points.

First of all King does not to my understanding have a US trademark for "candy" or "saga". They have applied to get those trademarks, which I think they are perfectly ok in doing as it could help them protect their games. Lots of companies could oppose them and I'm just guessing that quite a few are already (but that is just a guess). They do have a trademark for "candy" in EU, which they bought from a company going into bankruptcy. Again that is the wise move as a "trademark troll" otherwise could have bought it and used it against Candy Crush Saga. None of this is evil.

If there were others before King having a trademark with "candy" in the name of a game they can and probably will oppose King and stand a good chance at winning that opposition and preventing King from being granted a "candy" trademark. By the way your reasoning about trademarking "windows" in the installation industry is very different than "candy" in a games industry as there is no specific connection between the word "candy" and games. Its more similar to "apple" in the computer industry or "fox" in the media industry.

The Banner Saga case is a bit different. They would have to oppose to be certain of keeping their trademark valid. As the trademarks are organised Banner Saga falls within the same business category. Even if all of us in the games industry understands that the two games are very different, the trademark system does not.

Martin Svensson
profile image
BTW. Here is a good story about the CandySwipe situation that has a different perspective than most stories that have been floating around in media.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/02/12/a-different-candy-themed-
bejeweled-clone-fights-kings-candy-crush-saga-trademark-king-resp
onds-predictably/

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin

"By the way your reasoning about trademarking "windows" in the installation industry is very different than "candy" in a games industry as there is no specific connection between the word "candy" and games. Its more similar to "apple" in the computer industry or "fox" in the media industry."

Yes, a point I alluded to later in my response. But, nice try at discrediting me. I made that abundantly clear in my comment, but then I go on to point out that "candy" has been used in video game titles since 'at least' the 90's. Do you happen to work for King?

In the language that King filed in their opposition they mention that Stoic was using a deceptively similar mark. That was their argument; which anyone can plainly see is wrong. That was a dishonest (thus, unethical) statement.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin

Nice link. Let's grab a quote:

"King.com was not the first actor in this scuffle - Mr. Ransom was. He filed an opposition to King's trademark application for Candy Crush Saga (note: this is not King's trademark for the word "Candy," but the one specific to "Candy Crush Saga"). He presents more than ample evidence, too, of actual confusion between the two companies' products. Hundreds of instances of users either downloading his game believing it to be King's title or calling Ransom's game a knockoff. We all know that hurts - Mr. Ransom clearly put a lot of time and effort into his product, achieved millions of downloads, and all to see its visibility swept away by a company whose own, similar product becomes nearly ubiquitous thanks to advertising and money. And came out 2 years later, to boot.

Mr. Ransom is understandably mad that King's product has essentially pulled the rug out from under his own aspirations, and taken a likely very sizable hunk of his customer base with it. That sucks. That part, though, is as they say, business." - www.androidpolice.com

Let's look at one of King's quotes when they talk about the "saga" mark and "The Banner Saga:"

“In this case, that means preserving our ability to enforce our rights in cases where other developers may try to use the Saga mark in a way which infringes our IP rights and causes player confusion," the statement read. "If we had not opposed Banner Saga’s trade mark application, it would be much easier for real copy cats to argue that their use of ‘Saga’ was legitimate." - King

King quotes from their opposition to Stoic's registration of the "saga" mark:

"believe that Applicant's goods originate from the Opposer, resulting in a likelihood of confusion." - King

"deceptively similar" - King

Check out the tidbit about Scamperghost and Pac-Avoid:

http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied

King's Response:

“King does not clone other peoples’ games. King believes that IP – both our own IP and that of others – is important and should be properly protected. Like any prudent company, we take all appropriate steps to protect our IP in a sensible and fair way. At the same time, we are respectful of the rights and IP of other developers. Before we launch any game, we do a thorough search of other games in the marketplace, as well as a review of trademark filings, to ensure that we are not infringing anyone else’s IP. However, for the avoidance of doubt, in this case, this game – which was coded by a third party developer 5 years ago – has been taken down.” - King (src: dsogaming.com)

Notice the part of the quote by King, "Before we launch any game, we do a thorough search of other games in the marketplace, as well as a review of trademark filings, to ensure that we are not infringing anyone else's ip."

Back to that link you provided to AndroidPolice.com:

"That part, though, is as they say, business." - AndroidPolice.com

Please tell me how King isn't unethical?

Martin Svensson
profile image
Hey, just because I don't have a go at King does not mean that I work there. I am Swedish and work in the game industry there and perhaps that makes me less critical to King.

I do fully agree that the PacAvoid story is ugly. King admitted their mistake.

I still can't see what is unethical besides the PacAvoid case. It is business. What you should be aware of is that King is not a large corporation. At 2010 when they built Candy Crush they were a fairly small developer with maybe a 100 employees. Its not like they were a big corporation at the time and only copied other successful games to claim their way to the top. You are sort of assuming that King is like Zynga (at least the Zynga we learned from what we read in the press) just because they are both successful within casual games.

I'd still argue that you are not factoring in how the systems work and why King might act the way they do. Using words like "deceptively similar" is probably what they had to do.

Well, I don't think we will agree on this. What you think is unethical is what I would find reasonable when protecting a successful business. If, or hopefully when, you develop game that becomes a massive hit I'm sure you will be forced into the world of trademarks and patents and all that stuff. It is ugly, but it does not make you evil.

My main issue is when you and others read the stuff Ransome is spreading in media and don't read between the lines and really thinks that King have copied his game. Having this said I do agree with you that King apparently did something wrong with PacAvoid. They did not act perfectly with Banner Saga and possibly they could have avoided that completely if they would have been smarter about it.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin,

Just because something may be 'business' doesn't mean it's ethical. Also, at 100 employees they may not have been a Zynga or EA, but that's still a substantially large game development studio. Furthermore, I'm not sure when they started working on Candy Crush Saga, but Candyswipe had been released 'two years' before it.

I don't think CCS and Candyswipe are clones; but it's obvious that CCS borrowed heavily from Candyswipe. It appears they took the idea and improved on it.

However, here's the big problem. Runsome showed that people thought Candyswipe was a cheap knockoff of CCS despite being released two years earlier than CCS. Did you read the documents that Albert Ransom provided?

Ryan Christensen
profile image
Looks like their revenues and users are starting to level off or ceiling out, hate them or not, might be good timing for King. Maybe they use the investment from the IPO to get into better gaming pastures like Zynga did recently with Natural Motion purchase.

Josh Neff
profile image
Wow... that's an awful dramatic shift in revenue... to me that screams cooked books and would be a major red flag to me, as an investor. Add to that the growing ill will toward King by consumers and the bad-media-hay-day and I'd say King's portfolio fails to demonstrate reliable growth and a safe investment. King simply doesn't have the demonstrable assets to warrant an investment... at least not in my book.

Ian Griffiths
profile image
You'd have to be awfully stupid to 'cook the books' in an SEC filing as you'd probably face a very long jail sentence. Don't forget that these things are poured over in incredible details by many, many people from the accounting and legal profession.

I think it's acceptable to question whether King can maintain a leading market position but accusing them of fraud isn't helpful or smart.

Kevin Fishburne
profile image
First, King is too big to fail now. Product and market diversification aren't necessary in their case. Second, their name sounds similar to another too-big-to-fail company, Zynga, which last time I checked is the most successful game developer to date and grows more successful by the day. I think King has a bright future, especially once they crush blatant IP violators like Albert Ransom and his inferior CandySwipe. It's upsetting how unethical the computer entertainment industry is these days. Long live King; God is on their side.

Diana Hsu
profile image
...heh.

David Konkol
profile image
Did you hit your head on something?

Albert Ransom has a legitimate case. Doesn't matter if you think it is inferior, King blatantly ripped off this game. The gamepay is similar, the UI is similar ... I hope Albert sues King until they glow in the dark... nothing more then they deserve.

zed zeek
profile image
Mate Gurinder Singh & him are obviously taking the piss.
I can see this IPO failing heavily its obvious to everyone theyre just trying to cash out

Kevin Fishburne
profile image
It was satire, and you're right. I hope Albert's lawyer brings down the lightning and makes King executives grovel on their knees on YouTube. I'd forgive them, then.

Martin Svensson
profile image
Really? Arguing that the gameplay is similar is like saying that any 3D shooter is a blatant rip-off of an earlier 3D shooter. The artwork is completely different, and that Runsome claims that it is identical just shows what a gold-digging fraud he is. The game play is not similar. One game is a linker and the other is a switcher with level progression. There is not even a rationale to clone a game like CandySwipe because the quality is very low. Candy Crush bears much more similarities with Bejeweled than CandySwipe.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin,

So, what you're saying is that it's fine if I make a game called, say "Candy Flopper," skin it with various candies, add stylized "Sweet" to it, changed up the game-play to something similar to match three, but with my own twist to it?

Just in case you missed it: King is saying that someone cannot make a completely different game with a title that perfectly matches the story and game-play of their game then have a generic term ("Saga") as part of the title ("The Banner Saga").

Note: "The Banner Saga" is an epic adventure set in viking lore and legends. The definition for "Saga:"

"a long story of heroic achievement, especially a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic:

'a figure straight out of a Viking saga'" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/saga?q=Saga

Then, people scratch their head on what the uproar is over... then, on top of it, it doesn't help that King basically says that Stoic is just a casualty of them trying to protect their IP... the language King used made it sound like Stoic had deceptively named their title... outright lie or -a better term- unethical.



Yes, because "The Banner Saga" can be confused with "Candy Crush Saga."

Martin Svensson
profile image
@alan

Well. Check the app stores and Facebook. The market is flooded with games called something with candy. Its not like Ransome was the first guy to think of using candies in a game. One example I found was "candy crusher" from 2009. Did Ransome rip off that game?

The games are not even close to be a clone. With that argument you could only have one 3D-shooter game in the world, one RTS, one racing game etc. Have you studied the market and seen how many real clones that are out there? Candy Crush is clearly not a clone of CandySwipe.

I have not missed the Banner Saga story. I have read posts from legal experts explaining why King likely did oppose the Banner Saga trademark. According to King's public letter they clearly states that they don't mind Stoic using that name, but they have opposed their trademark to protect their own. To my understanding they are basically forced to do so by the way the system is constructed.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin,

Nice try at setting up a strawman here. I suspect you work for King.

Martin Svensson
profile image
Don't know how to respond to that Alan. I suspect you work with mr Ransome?

As said in the reply above I do live in Sweden and I do not see how King as a company is evil or unethical. The latter was quite obvious from the start of our discussion since that is where we disagree.

We're not really getting anywhere and I have tried to make my points.

Alan Boody
profile image
@Martin

I don't think King is evil, nor do I think that many other big game companies are evil. I don't think EA is evil. But, just because a system and laws work the way they do doesn't mean you can't still act unethically while navigating them.

So, from the perspective of ethics, I think that you can lump King in with Zynga. Also, as much as you want to dismiss the whole Pac-Avoid as unfortunate and a mistake, it did happen. They stole a small developer's idea. Apologizing after they got caught doesn't absolve them. They're no better than Zynga.

Michael Thornberg
profile image
@Martin Svensson:
Sounds way more likely that you work for King actually.

Nooh Ha
profile image
Seems to be a few "I'm not a lawyer but..." statements. Here's the view of an actual games lawyer:
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Osborne+Clarke+news/news.asp?
c=57518


none
 
Comment: