Magic: the Gathering versus Hex: Shards of Fate

[KLSymph]

Magic: the Gathering is the pioneer of the trading card game genre, invented twenty years ago and now sporting both a cardboard and an online version.  Hex: Shards of Fate is hoping to be the pioneer in the massively multiplayer online trading card game genre, funded last year via Kickstarter.  Wizards of the Coast--Magic's publisher along with D&D--took a look at Hex and is now suing Cryptozoic Entertainment--Hex's publisher along with World of Warcraft's TCG--for patent/copyright infringement.

Here is Wizards of the Coast's public statement.
And here is Cyptozoic Entertainment's response.  (And a less official one.)

Feeling rather interested, I looked through Hex's website to look for similarities to Magic.  I've followed Magic's game design over the years, but I'm no expert on the legal details of the property.  When I think of things specific to Magic in the trading card game genre based on the company's own weekly design articles, I think of tapping (which I know has been patented) and the color wheel.  This is not a deep investigation on the legality of what's going on, but does Hex have those things?

Tapping is turning a card sideways.  Hex says:

In HEX, we have streamlined the resource system so you don't have to mess with resource cards at all after you play them from your hand. There's no turning resources sideways, figuring out WHICH resources to turn sideways, any of that nonsense. Playing cards in HEX is fast, intuitive, and simple.

So no, apparently.

On the color wheel, Magic has white, blue, black, red, and green (and colorless). Hex has a resource system with five thresholds: Diamond, Sapphire, Blood, Ruby, and Wild (and artifact).  Reading the descriptions of the thresholds does ring the rip-off bell loudly: that's strictly a one-to-one matching of threshold to color in terms of what they do and what they represent.  However, the Hex site doesn't provide enough detail to say whether the thresholds relate to each other in the same ally/enemy way that the colors on the wheel does.

At the moment, I can't say whether that's enough for Wizards of the Coast to launch a successful lawsuit, but it's already enough for me to ask what the Hex designers were thinking by copying the color wheel and changing some names.  What do you think?

For the curious, here is Magic: the Gathering's old patent application, as well as this handy primer for reading patents.

And just to make this at least a little bit computer gaming, what do you think of a MMO trading game?  I don't even know what that would be like, looking at the MMO genre in the grindy level-up paradigm.

[Merc]

Since you commented on background/familiarity, I'll note that I've played a lot of TCGs, mostly digital, and my main experience with Magic is also digital (Duels of the Planeswalkers).

I also frankly loathe MtG and think that the resource mechanic is an abomination. Okay, I'm exagerating, but I really am not a fan of it and the randomness of it. Being punished or being given a huge advantage depending on which side of the draw you are with resources is an absolutely terrible feeling. This is actually what I consider the most iconic mechanic of Magic.

I enjoy games like Yu-gi-oh, Hearthstone, Solforge, Scrolls, etc a heck of a lot more because they go out of their way to avoid that mechanic, even if they share some of the other mechanics of MtG.

Anyway...

If it was just tapping, I would have snorted at the absurdity of suing on that basis. Tons of TCG/CCGs have the turning a card mechanic, they just don't call it 'tapping' because of that patent.

Mind you, they're usually the real life games, not the digital ones. Digital games have so many possibilities where they can put an icon, a glowing aura, or even just have the computer tell you that is an illegal action. I'll come back to the tapping thing later on though.

If it was the color wheel, I'd give a head shake and still think it was absurd, because colors are pretty much identified with a certain element long before Magic even came into the picture.

It doesn't look good for Cryptozoic that the playstyles of the colors are pretty much identical, but there's argument for colors/elements/emotions/playstyles being pretty intuitive. They could work on arguing their case fairly well if it was just that.

I think that where they really screwed the pooch though, after watching a gameplay video ( http://www.gamespot.com/videos/hex-shards-of-fate-now-playing/2300-6416509/ ), is that they also have the same resource management method of Magic: Your deck doesn't just consist of creatures and spells, it also has the resource cards.

Playing resources increases your available resources, which you need to play creatures and spells. This is IDENTICAL, in every way to Magic.

They have a bit of innovation adding character mechanics which let you use those resources as well (Hero powers, ala Hearthstone, just to name something similar, which is oh so unhelpful to their "We're not plagiarizing!" stance), but it's the same mechanic overall, just some more options are present too.

And regarding the no tapping thing? Well Hex turns the cards sideways automatically once they act in combat. Just because you're not tapping the card, doesn't mean it isn't the same mechanic as Magic. The card is sideway! Not a warning, not any of the many suggestions that I gave as a possible action to show a card can't be reused!

All that big talk about no tapping in the game, and innovation? It's a salesman pitch for telling you that it does exactly what you expect, only automatic.

Should I mention that they even use the same phases breakdown to a turn? Crap, I guess I just did.

Hrm... Might as well tell you that you have a 60-card deck, have 20 life points, you have a four card limit on identical cards (not counting resources, which you can have more of), you start with seven cards and if you mulligan your hand you start with one card less. I could point out more, but I think you're getting the picture by now hopefully.

Wow! Amazing! The innovation blows me away! It's so different! In the video I linked earlier, the game designer outright says at one point that they wanted to keep mechanics familiar to players. Well they're so familiar right now that they're getting sued! Haha!

Man, I wanted to give Cryptozoic the benefit of the doubt (I love the DC deckbuilding game they put out), but watching the gameplay video, that feeling just fleeeeeeeeeeew right out the door.

A lot of the actual 'innovation' they're claiming over real life TCGs is really stuff that other digital TCGs have already been doing, ie streamlining/automating gameplay so you can't forget to do stuff with cards and their mechanics, don't have to deal with tokens, and manage buffs that can stick even after a card gets discarded. Most of the stuff that they're claiming as innovation of digital TCGs and setting themselves apart from Magic, I've been seeing in games like Solforge (leveling up cards) and Hearthstone (hero powers) too.

They may get through this, probably have to change some things to succeed in showing themselves as different, and hopefully they manage to do something because they've clearly put a lot of effort into the project and done a great job on streamlining things, and the art on cards is great to look at.

...but it still looks and feels like Magic, and the few new mechanics that take advantage of the digital setting don't save it from being called out on being what it is.

[KLSymph]

Looks like you've had far more non-Magic TCG experience than I have, and looked into Hex deeper too.  I noted the similarities in Hex's usage of terminology, but I had to assume those were common in the TCG genre at this point.

Yeah, I agree about the whole random resource shortage/mana screw issue.  On the other hand, I tend to like playing aggro-red decks because they minimize the impact of mana screw.  It's very much a deck construction consideration.  At least Wizards have cut down on land destruction over the years (except that I used to loooooove land destruction).

They may get through this, probably have to change some things to succeed in showing themselves as different, and hopefully they manage to do something because they've clearly put a lot of effort into the project and done a great job on streamlining things, and the art on cards is great to look at.

Well, I do hope the rest of their Kickstarter money doesn't get sucked into WotC's gaping maw, at least.

...but it still looks and feels like Magic, and the few new mechanics that take advantage of the digital setting don't save it from being called out on being what it is.

I personally want to see what contorted excuses they'll give to the accusations.

[KLSymph]

That sure looks like a tap symbol between the (3) and the arrow.