It’s a sign of how little most movies channel contemporary experience that the manners and habits and attitudes of the age of Tinder have remained a relatively off-screen topic. This past January, the Sundance drama “Newness,” directed by Drake Doremus (it has yet to be released), was a designer soap opera that had a few telling observations to make about what it feels like to live your life in a digital meat market. As a movie, though, it didn’t quite take hold. The new pulp thriller “Bad Match” is darker, grimier, and more entertaining. Written and directed by David Chirchirillo, who co-wrote the scurrilous violent hipster comedy “Cheap Thrills” (2013), it’s “Fatal Attraction” for the age of the revolving-door hook-up, and in its fevered low-budget way it’s just clever enough to do what it sets out to do. It gives toxic masculinity its just desserts.
Jack Cutmore-Scott, who suggests a randier version of the young Greg Kinnear, plays Harris, a sleazy-smart young L.A. dickwad. He works for an advertising agency, and when he’s not soaking up his time with murder-fantasy video games he’s usually on a hook-up app, where he’ll swipe on 50 women’s photos a day, playing the percentages. He generally winds up in bed with one of them a few hours after they’ve met. Then he sneaks away, never to be seen again, ready to dive back into the shopping mall of sex.
In movies, the cad who discards women as quickly as he finds them is an old trope (if Michael Caine’s Alfie had Tinder, he would have been this dude). But what gives “Bad Match” its twinge of originality is the way that Harris uses technology to seal himself inside an impenetrable bubble of solipsistic male coolness. Even on a date, where his opening gambit is to predict what drink the girl he just met is going to order, he’s staring at her through an imaginary computer screen.
Then he meets Riley (Lili Simmons), a willowy and confident 21-year-old student who seems just as avid in her gullibility as the others, until she fastens onto Harris and won’t let go. She keeps texting, calling, imploring. Is she stalking him? Or is the stalking in the eye of the beholder with the cold shoulder?
Thirty years on, “Fatal Attraction” still looms as a mythical thriller of feminine power. Yes, the Glenn Close character was “crazy,” but she stood in for all the women who ever thought, in the years after the sexual revolution, “I am not just going to be discarded!”
In “Bad Match,” Lili Simmons plays Riley in the same vein, as a spurned object of desire who will lie, manipulate, and shoot over the edge of acceptable behavior, but only to shove her humanity in Harris’ face. She fakes a suicide attempt (a loathsome thing to do — but Harris’ indifferent response is even worse), and by the time she begins to mess with his Twitter account, we’re in a brave new world of payback. Jack Cutmore-Scott, in a strong performance, makes Harris a supremely confident dude coming apart at the seams. When the police knock at his door, and we know in our bones what they’re looking for, the film turns into a cautionary pulp pressure cooker: Live by the digital gaze, die by the digital gaze.
There’s a moment where Riley has snuck into Harris’ apartment and is making a surprise dinner for him, and when Harris discovers her, she’s holding a kitchen knife. Shades of “Fatal Attraction” — but more than that, shades of every cheap thriller that ever introduced a psychological situation only to turn it into something action-y and boring. “Bad Match” often feels like it could become that kind of “ride,” but it never does. It’s something a shade more interesting: a scuzzy bro nightmare.
“Game cloning” (copying the core mechanics and gameplay loop of a released or in-development title) continues to be a rampant problem, especially on mobile storefronts. The latest victim is “Donut County,” a game by Ben Esposito and published by Annapurna.
Not only did a copycat beat “Donut Country” to the market, Voodoo (the company behind it) managed to land a $200 million investment. A press release announcing the partnership with Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs heralds the publisher for its “vision, execution capabilities, and innovation velocity.” This vision, according to Voodoo’s website, includes metrics-driven app development and purchasing installations, a well-documented way to influence app rankings.
If you’ve never heard of “Donut County,” think of it like a reverse “Katamari Damacy.” Instead of making larger and larger balls of junk, you’re swallowing things up into a hole that gets wider as it consumes more. It’s adorable and colorful, and it’s due out later this year.
When it does release, some people are going to be confused. There’s a game out there right now on iOS and Android called “Hole.io.” Players take on the role of holes and swallow up the world around them. Sounds familiar, right? That’s because “Hole.io” is a “clone.”
“Game cloning” is a euphemism. It’s what you say in polite company when you don’t want to outright accuse someone of stealing your game idea and rushing a slipshod version to market. It’s hard to be genteel about the behavior though, when the culprit touts a massive influx of cash from a Wall Street investment bank.
The practice of cloning has been going on for years. The worst part is that unless the cloner rips off art assets, sounds, or the title, the practice dances just on this side of the legal line.
“Game ideas or mechanics are not protectable under copyright law,” says Odin Law and Media founder Brandon Huffman. “Individual assets (like specific art, music, etc.) are. Most clone developers know this and so they avoid taking specific art or sound assets and try to build, from scratch, a similar game – albeit usually a crappier version.”
There are few things a developer can do to combat a clone, because of how Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests work. The app stores themselves can be prickly to work with. Bringing a rival developer to court over a clone isn’t an inexpensive process and, sometimes, it’s simply not feasible.
“In order to recover for infringement from a clone developer, the original developer would have to show either actual copying or that the two games are so strikingly similar that one basically must be a clone of the other,” Huffman explains. “For example, individual features, like a HUD or a game mechanic, on its own, isn’t sufficient. But if there is a long list of similarities and very few differences, that might be enough to hold the cloner accountable. Taking action against the app stores is tough for three big reasons. First, the costs. Submitting a DMCA request is easy, but if the clone developer counter-notices, filing an infringement suit can be expensive. Second, the app marketplaces aren’t always cooperative. They sometimes don’t take things down or they restore apps without a proper counter-notification which requires consent to jurisdiction in US federal district court. Finally, often clone games are produced in foreign markets and cross-border enforcement is both logistically and financially more difficult.”
Some try to release their own games (or direct copies of the originals) on mobile storefronts under the original names to trick users and rake in some cash before they’re shut down. Even if a DMCA request swats the clone off the store because of the title, it might not be gone for good.
“One tactic that I’ve seen work is using trademark, rather than copyright, to get the games taken down,” Huffman says. “For example, if I made a game titled ‘Super Title Game’ and I registered the trademark, and the clone game is titled ‘Super Title Game Extreme’ I could ask the marketplace to remove the game on the trademark basis. If they then rename the game ‘Extreme Game’ without the infringing title, the game would probably be allowed to remain up, but fewer consumers would stumble on it when searching for my game.”
Apple and Google each have guidelines to try and combat cloning. Unfortunately, the law is often the restrictive force, putting platform holders in precarious situations. Apple did remove a number of “Flappy Bird” clones that were wholesale theft of code and assets, but it allowed the influx of similar experiences (especially after the original game was removed from the store).
Apple directly addresses the cloning problem in a guideline section called “Copycats.”
“Come up with your own ideas,” Apple urges. “We know you have them, so make yours come to life. Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own. In addition to risking an intellectual property infringement claim, it makes the App Store harder to navigate and just isn’t fair to your fellow developers.”
While this a guideline and not an operating procedure, it gives Apple a foundation for addressing rampant cloning. Google also mentions infringement, but doesn’t appear to specifically call out clones or copycats.
Attack of the clones The cloning issue rose to prominence with mobile gaming. Vlambeer’s Rami Ismail and JW Nijman ran into it with “Ridiculous Fishing,” as detailed in an extensive “Polygon” story. Their game premiered as a browser-based experience, with the intent to port it to app stores. The duo retained the rights for a mobile release, but before they could get there, a developer named Gamenauts copied “Ridiculous Fishing” and released a clone.
The same situation is happening now to developer Ben Esposito and his upcoming title, “Donut County.” Esposito and publisher Annapurna have shown “Donut County” at a number of industry events, including PAX East 2018. Enough of the title’s core mechanics have been on display that it was easy enough for someone to swoop in, take the basic concept, and fire it onto the app store.
That’s not enough to damage a studio working on an original title, though. Clones by themselves might gum up the works and make it harder for the original developer, but they aren’t the death knell for a great game.
Discoverability is a massive issue for mobile gaming (and, recently, PC storefronts). If players can’t find your game or it isn’t highlighted on the front page, they won’t find your title organically. One of the ways storefronts are combating discoverability issues is with rankings. If your game is popular enough to float near the top of a “most downloaded” list, it will be much easier for players to find.
That’s all well and good if everyone is playing on a level field. As you might have guessed, that isn’t the case for many games. It’s an even bigger issue with clones, like “Hole.io.”
“Hole.io” publisher Voodoo recently announced a massive $200 million investment from Goldman Sachs. The press release suggests that Voodoo is entering a period of “hypergrowth” with Goldman Sachs’ help.
Looking at Voodoo’s catalog, you’ll find games like “Flappy Dunk!”, “Rolly Vortex”, “The Fish Master”, “The Cube”, and “Infinite Golf.” Those are essentially clones of “Flappy Bird”, “Rolling Sky”, “Ridiculous Fishing” (yes, another “Ridiculous Fishing” clone), and “22 Cans’ Curiosity – What’s inside the cube?”
Voodoo’s entire visible portfolio (the company says it is working with more than 700 developers at this time) seems to be comprised of algorithm-driven clones. Voodoo is taking the stance that, like Match-3 games, titles like “Donut County” (of which there appear to be only two: “Donut County” and Voodoo’s own “Hole.io”) are a sub-genre that is fair game for mimicry.
“Developers are free to create their own games,” a Voodoo spokesperson says. “To do this, there exists a limited amount of preeminent gameplays. However, there can be an infinite amount of interpretations and execution. For example, the puzzle Match 3 gameplay is popular amongst developers and on the stores, however different studios have created original games by adding their own experience and art direction. In this spirit, other examples of popular gameplays that have been interpreted by many developers are hidden object, casino, bubble shooter and first person shooter games.”
Cloning alone isn’t enough to fuel the cash machine.
In order to get those clones into consumer view, they need to rank highly on the download lists. Voodoo isn’t shy about sharing its recipe.
“We are experts at buying cheap installs in big numbers, thanks to our mobile growth team,” Voodoo proclaims on its website. “We are a metric and result oriented team. We will help you understand the key metrics, and we will work with you to improve your game’s retention, in app purchases and viral growth.”
Voodoo tells Variety that it purchases its bulk installs from “Facebook and many other ad networks.” The company doesn’t hide that it games Apple and Google’s ranking systems.”Their games reach the top of the app store and are played by millions of people and they get lots of money to live off their passion,” a Voodoo representative explains.
It’s this practice that has put “Hole.io” atop the Free Games ranking list (above #3 ranked “Fortnite”). The fourth, eight, twentieth, and twenty-third spots also belong to Voodoo games.
“If we find that you have attempted to manipulate reviews, inflate your chart rankings with paid, incentivized, filtered, or fake feedback, or engage with third party services to do so on your behalf, we will take steps to preserve the integrity of the App Store, which may include expelling you from the Developer Program,” the guidelines state.
Google offers similar guidance. “Developers must not attempt to manipulate the placement of any apps in Google Play. This includes, but is not limited to, inflating product ratings, reviews, or install counts by illegitimate means, such as fraudulent or incentivized installs, reviews and ratings,” the company advises.
A harsh reality for “Donut County” Since game mechanics can’t be protected, “Hole.io” will live atop the rankings, earning ad revenue from legitimate downloads obtained through illegitimate promotion. With so much of Donut County’s mechanical conceit revealed to the public, it was ripe for the stealing.
There are some things developers can do to protect themselves, though. Romero Games co-founder Brenda Romero offers the following tips.
“I’m going to talk about the game when it can’t be caught,” she’s quoted as saying in “The GameDev Business Handbook.” “This is particularly important in games that could be rapidly developed, like many mobile games, certainly those that don’t have a two- or three-year timeline like most triple-A or triple-I titles do. I will never talk about my game too early, and I will never talk about my game when I know you can catch me.”
She also urges developers to keep at least one aspect of their games hidden from public view. That way the whole core gameplay loop can’t be copied. In those cases, ripoffs will never replicate the whole experience.
The truth is, there’s nothing Annapurna or Ben Esposito can realistically do to have “Hole.io” removed from the mobile storefronts. Voodoo has clearly used “Donut County’s” core mechanic to build “Hole.io,” but that’s within legal bounds. In a Twitter post from June 25, 2018, Esposito identifies that the two games are different enough, but is honest about his feelings.
“There are differences. ‘Donut County’ is a story based puzzle game, and ‘hole.io’ combines the premise for ‘Donut County’ (you’re a hole in the ground, swallowing objects makes you bigger), with the ‘.io’ king of the hill formula,” he writes. “It stings a little after 5+ years of convincing people a game about a hole in the ground is a good idea, lol… I can’t do anything about them stealing my thunder, really. I’m gonna focus my energy into finishing ‘Donut County.’”
Ben Esposito, Annapurna, and Apple did not immediately respond to Variety’s request for comment.
Disclosure: Michael Futter is the author of “The GameDev Business Handbook.” Romero was a subject in the book.