I just noticed today that Bespelled is a new game on MSN. And it looks exactly like BookWorm on RealArcade, except for a change in the main character. Same art, colors, everything. Looks like they just changed the branding. I wonder what the story is behind this.

Anyone else notice this?

Much like how Diamond Mine is the same game as Bejeweled and Rebound is the same game as Ricochet.

This type of thing usually happens when one portal/publisher has exclusive rights to distribute a game but the developer wants to put the game in other channels.

Is that so? I thought it was the publishers themselves that asked for a rebranding.

Changing the name and the logo of a game and selling it elsewhere to bypass the letter of a contract, besides being immoral, violates the spirit of the contract. Is that legally allowed?

I once had a publisher SUGGEST that I do that to get around someone elses exclusive contract with me. Personally I think if you did do it to get around a contract it would be immoral and against the spirit of the contract. I suspect it would be trouble for you if it ever got into court. Any judge would see right through that.

I mmmmiiight make an exception if the first publisher wasn't living up to their contract in some way but refused to cancel with you, but generally speaking you should protect yourself with a lame duck clause or some kind of general notice cancelation clause.

I don't think cheating or worming around contracts is the only reason people do this sort of thing though. Often publishers will ask for a different name or a developer might have another reason to rebrand.

The way I stated the issue in my previous post was overly simplified and a little misleading. The point is, there are often specific contract issue or business points that cause these name changes. They are not necessarily illegal or morally wrong. Sometimes they are agreed on in advance. It’s not like someone sold exclusive rights to the entire game to one portal, then sold the same game with a different name to another portal. But the first portal may have exclusive control over one aspect of the game. Or the first portal may simply want to own the name that they feel they added value to when they marketed the game to their audience. Publishers something think a game was a success because of their marketing more so than because of the game itself. They may not care if you sell the game somewhere else, as long as you don’t steal the equity they have in the name that they marketed.

In the case of Rebound/Ricochet, Reflexive was already distributing Ricochet on our own web site and in other channels. When Real Networks wanted their version of Ricochet to have specific changes made to the game, we offered to make those changes if the game was called something else. So we kept Ricochet on our site and made a new game for Real called Rebound with the specific changes they asked for. And Real got exclusive rights to Rebound so they could feel free to invent as much as they wanted into marketing the Rebound name without fear of us or another channel leveraging their marking dollars.

My understanding of the Bejeweled/Diamond Mine deal was that MSN controlled some aspects of Bejeweled. Pop Cap never intended or agreed to give MSN exclusive control of the game, but MSN was preventing then from distributing Bejeweled on other portals because of some contract detail. Pop Cap was able to get around this issue by replace the name and art and Diamond Mine was born. If it was illegal, I am sure MSN would have taken them to court.

I honestly do not know the details of why Pop Cap used two names. I am admittedly going off of second hand hearsay and many or all of the details could be wrong. The point is, different names allow developers to leverage the game design work they have done and deliver customized projects to different portals with different target audiences and different legal requirements.

Originally posted by svero
I mmmmiiight make an exception if the first publisher wasn't living up to their contract in some way but refused to cancel with you, but generally speaking you should protect yourself with a lame duck clause or some kind of general notice cancelation clause.


In that case, if a publisher is not honoring their side of the contract, you have the right to take legal action to either force them to honor it, or have the contract voided (and perhaps damages awarded to you.) If you did some dodgy dealing to get around the contract, if it ever became necessary to go to court, you could be put in an awkward position. Generally the best bet is to always honor your side of the arrangement.

Originally posted by Bluecat
In that case, if a publisher is not honoring their side of the contract, you have the right to take legal action to either force them to honor it, or have the contract voided (and perhaps damages awarded to you.) If you did some dodgy dealing to get around the contract, if it ever became necessary to go to court, you could be put in an awkward position. Generally the best bet is to always honor your side of the arrangement.

Yep. That's entirely true. It would have to be a pretty special set of circumstances. But on the other side of the coin you can't necessarily sue everyone that's done something dishonest to you. It's expensive and not necessarily practical. I suspect there are some cases where you'd be ok in court but generally speaking you're right.

Originally posted by svero
But on the other side of the coin you can't necessarily sue everyone that's done something dishonest to you. It's expensive and not necessarily practical. I suspect there are some cases where you'd be ok in court but generally speaking you're right.

Very true. In those cases it may be better to cut your losses and go on to the next thing. In the case where a publisher is causing a big hit to your income, or potential income, you'd have to decide if it's worth a lawsuit or not.