Support NeoGAF

[Ezquimacore]

Yeah I think they're enraged from the success of the mega hit Genshin and the well-received Fenyx. But still, gameplay patents? Well, it's business after all and each company should do their best to protect their inventions.

Nintendo sold 26 million copies of botw so I don't think they're enraged. If you know how much development money and time goes to come with the idea, conceptualize, create the code and the gameplay for it you will know why they patented this a year before the release day. This is not a patent for a thing that's not going to happen, this is something important for their most important game this year. Which obviously is going to be copied by others after the game is out, what they don't want is a leak to early and that's why the zelda team even has a secret room/studio at Nintendo's HQ.

 

[AMSCD]

Fuck Sega for patenting smooth camera changes in racing games.

That's why you get instant camera toggle in all racing games instead of the smooth transition you get in Sega's Virtua Racing, for example.

Yea patents in video games could have a chilling effect on indie developers who don't have the budget to check that their gameplay elements don't infringe third-party patents. To understand why, read the following. Copyright protects the original expression of an idea in fixed form. Consequently, code is protected by copyright because it is the written expression of an idea. That code can execute a process, but the process itself isn't protected by copyright, only the code is. Some other person could execute that same process without infringing copyright so long as that other person uses original code to execute that process. Patents, on the other hand, can protect the process itself. Consequently, a patent to a process (e.g. a software patent) will prohibit others from implementing the patented process even if the others use original code. Its a lot more complicated than this, obviously.

 

[Aldric]

Nothing new

Really? What are the games that have mechanics resembling the swimming through stone ability? The only one I can think of is Gravity Rush and it's a much more simple implementation where you just chose a spot and "fall" to it.

 

[Notabueno]

Really? What are the games that have mechanics resembling the swimming through stone ability? The only one I can think of is Gravity Rush and it's a much more simple implementation where you just chose a spot and "fall" to it.

I'm pretty sure I've played tons of game with a warp through wall ability, even some designed exactly with the ability the warp only if there's suitable ground you can warp to.

 

[iHaunter]

Why is there a patent for that though

Because Nintendo are enormous pieces of shit.

 

[jaysius]

Ubisoft develops games in record time, they could easily steal the shit out of this and release the next immortal fenyx rising before breath of the wild 2 lol.

Nobody wants to admit it, but Fenyx is better in MANY ways than BOTW.

 

[AJUMP23]

They should add the Nemesis system, where you kill a miniboss and a new boss takes the place.

 

[SafeOrAlone]

I always go into Zelda games, wanting to engage in epic adventure by way of combat, exploration, and platforming, until I'm reminded that Zeda games are all about puzzles and I don't really have interest in that, aside from playing Portal or something.

The first divine beast I played in Breath of the Wild was the signal that it wasn't really the game for me.

 

[yurinka]

Systems layered on systems that interact with one another is what I wish more studios would focus on.

Yes this IS next gen.

Well, GTA or GTA III already had many systems layers interacting with each other. Can also be seen in most open world games since some generations ago, like the Ubisoft, Rockstar, CD Project or Sony ones.

Yeah I think they're enraged from the success of the mega hit Genshin and the well-received Fenyx. But still, gameplay patents? Well, it's business after all and each company should do their best to protect their inventions.

I think it's ok to patent their inventions, but in this case these aren't their inventions, since other games already implemented these concepts of rewinding time, pass through walls or shooting while falling/free fall.

 

[bender]

Well, GTA or GTA III already had many systems layers interacting with each other. Can also be seen in most open world games since some generations ago, like the Ubisoft, Rockstar, CD Project or Sony ones.

I didn't say BOTW invented this. Further, outside of GTAIII, R* does a really poor job of utilizing their open world and systems in their mission designs. CD Project is another bad example. Most modern open world games really don't take advantage of their emergent systems. Look at all the crazy stuff you can do in Morrowind how much Bethesda has dumbed down TES since that game.

A lot of people don't appreciate the structure of BOTW and that's fine. It can certainly be a little weak if you are looking for the traditional dungeon designs found in the series. The open world they created is just a wonderful sandbox that allows players to be creative and have unique experience. It's a great watercooler game.

 

[yurinka]

A lot of people don't appreciate the structure of BOTW and that's fine. It can certainly be a little weak if you are looking for the traditional dungeon designs found in the series. The open world they created is just a wonderful sandbox that allows players to be creative and have unique experience. It's a great watercooler game.

I appreciate Botw and I think it's an awesome, very polished masterpiece. But I refuse the claims saying that it invented things that other games did before. Something that doesn't only happens with BotW.

Not sure why, but some Nintendo fans seem to have the need to say Nintendo invented everything when it isn't the case. Like everyone else, they take references and ideas from previous games and iterate on it. Botw2 got these features from other games, Botw added many things from open worlds games and MH to the Zelda series. And Super Mario got stuff from previous games like Pac-Land. And that's ok.

Regarding the dungeons, I liked the new approach but I accept that I missed some big dungeons like the classic ones. It wasn't a big issue for me, the things I didn't like were weapons breaking too fast, the stamina running too fast at the start until you grinded it, or the insane amount of kologs. I think I spent around 300 hours in the game and I completed everything but the kologs.

 

[Aldric]

I see that we're back to the "BotW didn't invent flammable grass!!" classics, you love to see it!

 

[Ezquimacore]

Nobody wants to admit it, but Fenyx is better in MANY ways than BOTW.

Stop.

 

[Ezquimacore]

I really enjoy when people get salty as fuck whenever there's a botw thread, still hurt I see. The fun thing is the sequel is out this year so y'all will be hearing about botw 1 and 2 for at least 10 more years.

 

[bender]

But I refuse the claims saying that it invented things that other games did before. Something that doesn't only happens with BotW.

The posts you quoted in this thread didn't claim this.

 

[Hendrick's]

I really enjoy when people get salty as fuck whenever there's a botw thread, still hurt I see. The fun thing is the sequel is out this year so y'all will be hearing about botw 1 and 2 for at least 10 more years.

Is it though?

 

[Aldric]

I really enjoy when people get salty as fuck whenever there's a botw thread, still hurt I see. The fun thing is the sequel is out this year so y'all will be hearing about botw 1 and 2 for at least 10 more years.

It's amazing right? You can't get a thread about BotW or the sequel discussing gameplay mechanics without the same tired snide comments about breakable weapons or how overrated it is. Mental illness.

 

[brian0057]

Why is there a patent for that though

R&D costs money and time.
You think Nintendo (or any company for that matter) is just gonna be giving out their work for free?

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

Nobody wants to admit it, but Fenyx is better in MANY ways than BOTW.

Ubisoft is literal trash

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[lostinblue]

Why is there a patent for that though

Why is there a poll?

Nobody wants to admit it, but Fenyx is better in MANY ways than BOTW.

Erm, no. A thousand times no.

 

[jaysius]

Why is there a poll?

Erm, no. A thousand times no.

There are so many aspects of Fenyx that are more refined and simply more fun than BOTW, it's the truth, people are just in denial of it. This fact was stated hundreds of times over when Fenyx was released.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

There are so many aspects of Fenyx that are more refined and simply more fun than BOTW, it's the truth, people are just in denial of it. This fact was stated hundreds of times over when Fenyx was released.

take BOTW, copy everything, make it generic, cut out its soul and you'll get Fenyx. It's still one of the better games Ubisoft did in the last few years.

 

[brian0057]

Where's Valve patent on portal mechanics?

Valve didn't make the game.
It was part of a college project that Valve later acquired, along with hiring the students.

The problem is that this sends the message to any other devs (especially indie) that they shouldn't even attempt to make something similar, even if the implementation ends up different.

No, it sends the message to any other devs (especially indie) that in order to do what Nintendo is doing, they can't use the method the Big N used and find another way.
This forces them to come up with other solutions to the same problem, and thus innovating.
You know, innovation? The very thing for which patents were invented to encourage? The thing stupid people like to confuse with copyright?

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[brian0057]

Like I said in the post above, no indie dev is going to risk copying the idea even if it means making a different implementation.
Most indie devs don't have the resources to guarantee that the patent was not infringed, so they won't even bother.

This only benefits corporations.

Once again, you're mixing up copyright with patent.

YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT IDEAS.
AND YOU CAN'T PATENT COPIES.

The former only protects the method by which said idea was implemented, not the idea itself.
The latter only is granted if you can prove that your invention is new and unique.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[brian0057]

And once again you're missing the point of my post.

This is bad for the industry. Indies that don't have the resources to guarantee that the implementation will infringe Nintendo's patent will be afraid to risk doing something similar, even if the implementation is different. Too much risks and costs with lawyers in the worst case scenario.

This kills innovation from the bottom. This only benefits corporations.

Well, then devs have the following choices:

• Pay a license fee to Nintendo in order to use the newly developed technology (you forgot this was an option).
• Try to do the same thing but using a different method (or in other words, innovate).
• Do something completely different to the original idea (again, innovate).

Any way you slice it, the consumer still gets something completely new regardless.

You think innovation exists solely for the good of mankind?
You think a baker makes bread out of the goodness of his heart?
Fuck no! They wanna get payed. And in order to do that, you have to make sure no one else can copy or steal the work you just sunk a ton of money and maybe even years of your life to create and develop.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[ByWatterson]

I try and I try but I just can't get excited about any new Nintendo games until they release some actual hardware.

For video games.

Video game hardware.

 

[brian0057]

Patenting game mechanics only adds anxiety to the mix. Now it's an extra thing you have to worry about to not infringe someone else's implementation.
Wanna make a game mechanic? Make sure to read tons of documents to ensure your implementation doesn't infringe someone else's.

Unironically, yes.
And the consumer is the one that benefits the most.
I don't how many hoops any given dev has to jump through in order to make their game and frankly, I don't care.
That's their choice, not ours. All we care about is the final product.

Also, patents have been a thing in gaming since its very inception.
Gaming was never this communist utopia where everthing was shared willingly and every fountain had milk and honey.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

having patents for mechanics sounds very iffy, but the industry copies each other all the time, so I guess its not a big deal.

 

[brian0057]

having patents for mechanics sounds very iffy, but the industry copies each other all the time, so I guess its not a big deal.

It's not "very iffy".
You spend hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars developing the code. Possibly taking years to get it right.
The last thing you want is for some asshole to come in and take the work you spent so much on and you losing all of that because "it's unfair" or some shit.

I honestly wonder if the people that hate patents and copyright actually know a single thing about them and why they exist.
Are there stupid people abusing those tools? Absolutely, like in any other field. But unless you wanna get tyrannical, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Lynkk]

Unironically, yes.
And the consumer is the one that benefits the most.
I don't how many hoops any given dev has to jump through in order to make their game and frankly, I don't care.
That's their choice, not ours. All we care about is the final product.

Also, patents have been a thing in gaming since its very inception.
Gaming was never this communist utopia where everthing was shared willingly and every fountain had milk and honey.

I don't think you understand what he is trying to say:
- Big game company 1 creates Street Fighter, they patent the game mechanics.
- Small game company 2 creates King of Fighter.

then

- Big game company 1 sues small game company 2 stating they use the same game mechanics that they have patented.
- Small game company 2 gives up because they can't sustain the legal fees.

Game Over.

 

[brian0057]

I don't think you understand what he is trying to say:
- Big game company 1 creates Street Fighter, they patent the game mechanics.
- Small game company 2 creates King of Fighter.

then

- Big game company 1 sues small game company 2 stating they use the same game mechanics that they have patented.
- Small game company 2 gives up because they can't sustain the legal fees.

Game Over.

And unless the Street Fighter devs can prove that the King of Fighters dev stole their work, they can't do anything about it.
Just because one is larger than the other, it doesn't automatically make them top dog when it comes to litigation.
Or did you forget how a dude claming to have a patent on the Wiimote actually beat Nintendo's ass in court?

You people need to stop watching so much legal dramas and actually talk to a lawyer.