• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Game design patents are the worst trend since pay2win mechanics

Im all for protecting your IP but this BS comes clearly from soules suits that dont give a flying f about gaming culture. Popular cases with game mechanics that are now only avialable for some publishers like:
  • Namcos loading screen gaming (obsolete now i guess, but still a shame)
  • WB Nemesis system
  • Death Strandings Path-creating
Just imagine Nintendo did this back in the 80s....

Imagine nearly how much less platformers the NES and SNES would have and dont get me started how this would affected SEGA.

And this is just ONE example

So in the future a dev would need a legal team to make SURE it wont infringe on any copyright....

F THAT! Im so pissed!

Or im overeacting GAF?
 

Guilty_AI

Member
wait until they start patenting evocation of emotions

Well, from what i know, technically speaking, those patents aren't as a generalist as we make them out to be. The intention here seems more to stop their own developers from re-building these ideas in products they might make for other companies.

In the case of Death Stranding for example, the intention would be to stop Kojima P. from making another game utilizing similar mechanics using all the know-how and infrastructure they made for DS. But if some random devs on the other side of the globe made a similar system from the ground up without any prior knowledge on how DS's path-creating works internally, Sony would most likely not have a case.

That doesn't mean some of these companies don't create these patents in an active attempt to stop others from using them, but they're usually unsuccessful in enforcing it even if they do gain the patent
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
Not at all.

id Software made their engine open source for others, fans included, to use freely. They even helped other companies like Raven when it came to producing their games.

Nowadays something like that seems completely impossible.
Let’s not pretend idSoftware engine has no patent over it.
In fact there are several.

Having patents doesn’t mean you can’t release your source code… in fact it means you can release it and force people to use your engine instead to copy anything patented.

Patents probably helped idSoftware choose to release their engine source code.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Patents only cover a specific way of making or doing a thing. They don't necessarily cover end results. So if someone can design a different way to do it with the same result it's all good.
 
I’ve no problem with companies seeking to obtain patents, especially where there is significant invention (if, at a minimum, for proper attribution).

Enforcing method and software patents against others has to be done very selectively. Plus companies should broadcast how they intend to enforce their patents in order for market participants to know if they’re going to face legal action.

Inventiveness in the entertainment sector maybe shouldn’t be protected by patent law, so consider calling your congresswoman or Senator.
 
Let’s not pretend idSoftware engine has no patent over it.
In fact there are several.
Might be, I dunno. Btw I was talking about id tech 1, not sure about the others or if you might be referring to them.

Anyway I think it's cool they released it for the public. You don't see that so often nowadays.
 

cormack12

Gold Member
Or im overeacting GAF?

Fun Yes GIF by Lilly Singh



Thats the patent for xbox achievements. Since then weve had ps trophies, steam achievements.

You can argue patents drive creativity/innovation. And EA actually released the ping system patent for free.

Talented developers will find ways to do the same things in different ways ultimately.
 
Lots of these patents are specific enough that they aren't going to stop developers creating their own nemesis system or path building mechanics. They stop carbon copies and in-turn patent trolls.

Patents only cover a specific way of making or doing a thing. They don't necessarily cover end results. So if someone can design a different way to do it with the same result it's all good.
Im aware of that BUT to be safe, a dev HAS to consult a patent lawyer, so small devs will hesitate to come near them
 

Fare thee well

Neophyte
I despise how overly litigious the legal system has become: the elite drowning people in lawsuits to silence and intimidate, greedy patenting that stifles creativity and innovation, stupid loopholes that allow creeps to get a slap on the wrist for heinous crimes the common man would be jailed for.

Maybe it's always been this way, and we are just flooded with information about it now? I just think we can do so much better and a greater system can be implemented.
 

Notabueno

Banned
As always: blame the US government and it's regulation of justice systems and patents.

The patenting system is because it is so badly regulated, that anybody can patent any bullshit in some domains (remember Apple patenting "rounder corners") but not in other (dances in Fortnite...), and that if a company doesn't patent something they think they invented or even didn't invent and have stolen to another inventor or design who didn't patent it, they should patent to future-proof themselves in case they get sued or the legal system because even more overzealous.

And there's worse than that since nobody has mentioned it: patent creation is an economy. Every patent you deposit is value added for your companies stock valuation.
 

brian0057

Member
Or im overeacting GAF?
Absolutely.

Imagine spending several years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in R&D, trying to come up with innovations or with something cool, only for then have people bitch and moan that you're a piece of shit for not giving away all of your hard work for free and for all the world to use.

All we have to lose is our chains, comrade.
 
Absolutely.

Imagine spending several years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in R&D, trying to come up with innovations or with something cool, only for then have people bitch and moan that you're a piece of shit for not giving away all of your hard work for free and for all the world to use.

All we have to lose is our chains, comrade.
dont comrade me dude, im clearly not talking about copying assets/animations or something like that. im talking about hindering innovation steps that are we proceeding together as a gaming culture. ffs, in sorytelling (books/movies/games) the framework of the "heroes journey" is the base for lotr, star wars, harry potter and nearly every story with a hero in it. you tell me that such a framework should be protected and completly under control for only one entity?

im so glad parasite patent lawyers weren't around when tables were invented bc parasite patent lawyers would have found a ways to patent "four legged tables".
 

brian0057

Member
im talking about hindering innovation steps that are we proceeding together as a gaming culture.


You literally just went "Your innovations? No. Our innovations".
Yeah, you're totally not a comrade, comrade.

ffs, in sorytelling (books/movies/games) the framework of the "heroes journey" is the base for lotr, star wars, harry potter and nearly every story with a hero in it. you tell me that such a framework should be protected and completly under control for only one entity?

That's copyright, not patent.
Also, you can't copyright an idea.

im so glad parasite patent lawyers weren't around when tables were invented bc parasite patent lawyers would have found a ways to patent "four legged tables".

Agreed.
Maybe we should return to the days of guilds and cloak-and-dagger secrecy where ideas and inventions where protected quite literally to the death.
Truly a more civilized epoch.
 
Last edited:

aclar00

Member
Arent the patents just for the methods and not the end results? I know little about US patent law, but in general, dont things just need to 10% different to get around patents...hence why similar products by diff companies can be created e.g game consoles, tvs, cars, etc...?
 

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Or im overeacting GAF?
yes
Game design patents can only be given for very specific functions that bring several systems together to create something that's actually new, everything else cannot be copyrighted or patented, because all games rely and build on things that are considered universal, like core mechanics.

It still sucks, but yeah you're overreacting.
 



That's copyright, not patent.
Also, you can't copyright an idea.



Agreed.
Maybe we should return to the days of guilds and cloak-and-dagger secrecy where ideas and inventions where protected quite literally to the death.
Truly a more civilized epoch.
Yes WE, the devs, the publishers, the critics, the histiorians and YES also the consumers - WE are the gaming culture - we all need each other. nothing happens in a bubble, its all interconnected. but i dont wanna go down that rabbit hole.

so take the example of the nemesis system, like the heroes jorney this system is a framework. so u dont use it with the signature orcs in a signature IP universe, you use it with other content. for example, this would be a perfect addition to ghost of tsushima. its not orcs, its not the lotr WB movie universe. its a completly different thing because its only adapts the ideea of a military hirachy in an open world.

so ist the concept of infantry, artillery and cavalery in a battlefield. this is basic shit, like a controller is build for regular hands with 2 thumbs and 8 fingers. imagine nintendo would have patented shoulder buttons back in the SNES days....
 

brian0057

Member
imagine nintendo would have patented shoulder buttons back in the SNES days....

They literally did, but not those
The d-pad and face button layout of the NES and SNES was patented.
Why do you think Sony and Microsoft had to come up with differente designs for their controllers? It wasn't until prior to the release of the PS4 and XBOX ONE that said patent expired and now, at least with XBOX, they can use the proper d-pad.

It's all bullshit in the Grand scheme and stifles innovation

No, it doesn't.
You can either license the tech for your own use or come up with your own version. Hell, maybe you can find an even better method, thus making further innovations.
But everyone these days want everything for free and screw the people that did all the hard work.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It's all bullshit in the Grand scheme and stifles innovation
I agree.

Didn't Atari have a patent for 2600 where a sprite going from one side of the screen to the other was patented? Might be wrong but there was something like that.

Getting a patent at its core is supposed to be something that is unique, useful, and not something that is so obvious and common an inventor cant just hoard it. It's no different than trademarking words or a logo. You cant trademark the word "the" for example. There's go to be something special and unique about it.

It's like the patent board is bored and will green light anything. And why not, it's a revenue generator costing $1000s to apply for. The more patents filed and granted which encourages more patent submissions, the more money made by the government.
 
They literally did, but not those
The d-pad and face button layout of the NES and SNES was patented.
Why do you think Sony and Microsoft had to come up with differente designs for their controllers? It wasn't until prior to the release of the PS4 and XBOX ONE that said patent expired and now, at least with XBOX, they can use the proper d-pad.



No, it doesn't.
You can either license the tech for your own use or come up with your own version. Hell, maybe you can find an even better method, thus making further innovations.
But everyone these days want everything for free and screw the people that did all the hard work.
Yes it does because we waste our time coming up with 10 ways to do the same thing instead of thinking of something actually new.
 

brian0057

Member
Yes it does because we waste our time coming up with 10 ways to do the same thing instead of thinking of something actually new.
Of course, you're right.

Why are we even using internal combustion engines when we can just use carriages pulled by horses.
After all, we just need to move from one place to another. The method is irrelevant. Hell, just walk. No vehicle needed.
Phones? Psh. We should've stuck with the telegraph. Or even better, handwritten letters.

Why improve on things when we already have a way of doing things. We don't need new ways to do the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Of course, you're right.

Why are we even using internal combustion engines when we can just use carriages pulled by horses.
After all, we just need to move from one place to another. The method is irrelevant. Hell, just walk. No vehicle needed.
Phones? Psh. We should've stuck with the telegraph. Or even better, handwritten letters.

Why improve on things when we already have a way of doing things. We don't need new ways to do the same thing.
This is the dumbest rebuttal I've seen in a while. Good job.
 
Top Bottom