Hollywood Reporter columnist Paul Hyman offers a welcome view on casual games, arguing that imitations and clones are diluting the market. The article primarily considers the question of developer/publisher rights and IP -- particularly whether gameplay is subject to copyright protection. Hyman also points out that the portals are starting to make more money from ads than game sales, so the games themselves matter less and less.

One factor the article does not consider is the effect of all this cloning on the future attention of casual game players. Casual games were supposed to promise small budgets, accessible digital distribution, and more general audiences. But what they have produced is a perverse obsession with a market of zombie clickers. Casual games of the downloadable try-before-you-buy on a traditional portal type are tyrannizing small-scale PC/Mac games in general. Given so many iterations of the same game, and given that most trials provide adequate satisfaction (thus the 1-2% conversion), casual games have become a commodity. Buying a casual game is more like buying shampoo than deciding what film to Netflix this week. There is a real risk that casual/downloadable games as commodity will confuse and dilute the future potential of experimental and indie games on the PC/Mac, especially those distributed via digital download.

Developers are in a rough spot: as Hyman points out, casual games can provide revenue enough so that, in the words of one developer, "you can then go out and build the game you really care about." But supporting the casual games market also may reduce the chances of getting that game you really care about distributed -- unless it's a clone of another game on the portal's top 10.