-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Patenting Game Mechanics: A Worse Idea Than Stadia (The Jimquisition)
- Thread starter Empyrean Cocytus
- Start date
It depends imo, something that's REALLY unique like Tetris and Bejeweled could and should be patented, but trying to patent things like a combat style or climbing mechanics is just silly as they're pretty generic and originate on real life actions.
PS: I'm still watching the content as I comment.
PS: I'm still watching the content as I comment.
Still watching, but really want to preempt:
If you're coming in to say you didn't like the nemesis system, no one cares—the problem is with the patenting of gameplay (even if it's technically ust a patent of a specific method) will discourage others from attempting to iterate on that gameplay concept which sucks
If you're coming in to say you didn't like the nemesis system, no one cares—the problem is with the patenting of gameplay (even if it's technically ust a patent of a specific method) will discourage others from attempting to iterate on that gameplay concept which sucks
Thankfully the genie has been out of the bottle for that one for decades. Absolutely no chance they'd be able to trademark Metroid-style progression.
The patenting of loading screen minigames did actively make gaming worse for generations (Crash Wrath of Cortex went from mediocre to unbearable thanks to the lack of the planned loading screen minigames)
You'd really have to wonder how much this patent stops developers from developing a game with systems similiar like these? Not sure there is an answer to this to be honest.
Yeah, if I made Tetris and decided not to sell it, then saw all the clones, it would make my idea worthless.
Minecraft is another that could have probably been patented, if Notch didn't become a billionaire and someone just cloned his idea and became more popular than the original work, it would definitely be another point where patents could have protected his idea.
both cases worked out, the biggest problem with the first one was Russia thought they owned Tetris, so it wasn't quite as great there.
The one good thing about this particular case, is that I don't think anyone has used the system, and the game's idea has been out for 8+ years now, they can form an identity out of the idea, but I do think limiting it to 10 years would be better, however we are never going to have patent laws that make sense, so I guess we just sit back and enjoy the ride here.
My last feeling that I've had on this is that I don't really want the industry copying everything, I want there to be unique stuff from unique studios, and something like a 10 year grace period would benefit that, but it can't be vague stuff like NPCs remembering you, so I hope that this patent is very hard to generalize, and you really have to be making shadow of mordor with a different skin/setting/theme, for the patent to really come into effect.
This is why Konami has had a strong hand over rhythm games.
tldr they own a patent on "a moving object overlapping a static one that reacts to a button press".
It's that vague and terrible.
tldr they own a patent on "a moving object overlapping a static one that reacts to a button press".
It's that vague and terrible.
Sega was able to successfully sue Fox over Simpsons Hit and Run. Also I believe Namco is the reason no one was allowed to have minigames during cutscenes
Tetris and Bejeweled can and should be trademarked and copyrighted. "Block stacking" and "match three" should not be patented.
Harmonix was heftily paying for use of the patent. Look at Guitar Hero Arcade and you'll actually see Konami logos on the cab and in the game.
Same thing goes with Pump it Up - Andamiro pays a chunk per cab sale for use of the patent.
I agree about block stacking, as it's pretty generic... But match 3 is a very unique concept that would have heavily benefited from copyright protection... Now we have a candy themed Bejeweled that made more money than the actual Bejeweled thanks to that lack of protection
You're right it was Road Rage but it was settled out of court. So for an undisclosed amount.
WHAT? I'm really shocked, that's one of the silliest things I've ever seen in that industry.
Pretty sure Sega patented having moves checked off the movelist as you perform them, which is probably while every other fighting game has those awful confirm boxes to break up your flow.
I get what you mean, what I meant was the exact way Bejeweled is played (that was blatantly ripped off by candy crush without repercussion [and Candy Crush actually tried to patent elements of the gameplay]).
Minecraft itself is a clone of another game Notch was a fan of. If patenting mechanics become commonplace who knows how many masterpieces we'd be deprived of because of fear of litigation
Patenting video game mechanics is literally decades old, looking at you Namco patent to be able to play games while in load screens that thankfully expired some years ago.
Game mechanic patents should be limited to like 3-4 years at most. You get your profits without anyone just ripping you off. Afterwards it's on you to make better sequels than the clones.
I don't think there's any legitimate discussion to be had here. Patenting game mechanics is horrendously noxious to innovation and iteration, period. Absolutely nobody with even a shred of interest and concern for gaming as a medium should be supporting it. I can barely begin to imagine what the current gaming landscape would look like if patenting mechanics had been a thing during the rise of gaming, before I shudder in horror.
A perfect example of how damaging it is to innovation. Loading screen minigames would have immensely benefited the PSX / PS2 era of games, at essentially zero cost to Namco's bottom line.
That's one, relatively trivial mechanic. Now imagine if Nintendo had patented every new mechanic they introduced in their games.
A perfect example of how damaging it is to innovation. Loading screen minigames would have immensely benefited the PSX / PS2 era of games, at essentially zero cost to Namco's bottom line.
That's one, relatively trivial mechanic. Now imagine if Nintendo had patented every new mechanic they introduced in their games.
As TimeFire said, Minecraft bring it's inspiration/mechanic from Infiniminer. So it's more like we would have never gotten one of the most successfull game of all time if that mechanic was patented by it's first creator.
Battle royal games are another example of that, and so on.
Of course there's an answer; if you're a developer you don't want to be liable for copyright infrinction, period. No indie dev, for example, is going to bother using a patented mechanic, any more than they're going to spend any time and money making an unofficial Pokemon game they intend to sell. Even larger developers have much better uses for their time and money than litigating patents.
The actual, practical effects of patents are 99%+ preemptive. For every case that you learn of that reached the courts, there's hundreds of instances you will never know about where the devs simply didn't bother taking the risk. Patenting a mechanic is effectively equivalent to killing it for everyone else, and in doing so, throttling the vast majority of its potential to be refined.
Except Minecraft wasn't his idea; he took most of its mechanics from Infiniminer. If Infiniminer's dev had patented his game's mechanics, we wouldn't even have Minecraft to begin with (and it's very unlikely Infiniminer would have gone on to enjoy Minecraft's popularity).
Your argument in favor of patenting mechanics is literally a perfect example of what we would have lost if someone had patented their mechanics. :)
Of fucking course we have someone on this thread defending WB's idiotic decision to patent the Nemesis system.
holy shit didn't knew about namco bandai patenting the loading screen mini-games.... thank you for making games on console miserable! ugh
I'm not arguing for it, but it seems the creator of infiniminer never made much of his invention, and someone else came and made billions, minecraft wasn't built in a day, and who knows what infinitminer would have become if it had a chance to become popular without the competition of minecraft.
Then again, I don't know how specific the patent is, because voxels have been around forever, and loot systems have been around forever too. If the creator of infinitminer was looking to expand on his game, should he be able to do so without someone who could be EA come in and make a more popular clone?
Infiniminer patenting its own mechanics doesn't lead to a future where it "became" Minecraft, Jesus Christ. You're being obtuse on purpose.
I don't see a problem here? The idea (ostensibly) of the patent is to allow original creators to recoup their R&D costs and possibly profit on them, on the assumption that game theory mechanics would encourage every developer not to be the one incurring the R&D costs (so everything stagnates).
Example: Nintendo invented Z-targeting with Zelda and patented it, but it wasn't like Miyamoto just had the idea and it sprang forth--it was a laborious trial and error where most things didn't work until they stumbled on Z-targeting. Without the patent, every other developer could then implement the same mechanic without the R&D expenditures, putting Nintendo at a big disadvantage.
Example: Nintendo invented Z-targeting with Zelda and patented it, but it wasn't like Miyamoto just had the idea and it sprang forth--it was a laborious trial and error where most things didn't work until they stumbled on Z-targeting. Without the patent, every other developer could then implement the same mechanic without the R&D expenditures, putting Nintendo at a big disadvantage.
Lol I read it like that every time I pass by the thread. Then it makes me things of Ethan from Heavy Rain haha.
I didn't say he would make billions or that it would become minecraft, it could have become popular on its own and made money on its own for the creator. You can have the opinion that ideas shouldn't be patented, I don't believe that personally, and my belief isn't going to matter to you, enjoy your life, I'm going to sleep.
Infiniminer is an open source game.
->
You didn't know about Infiniminer, which is fair enough; but you're now stubbornly scrambling to salvage an unsalvageable argument and it's downright embarrassing to watch. Let it go.
Yeah, I let it go, my stance is that people can own their ideas, but if you believe that patents shouldn't exist, that is fair. I didn't know about infiniminer as you pointed out, and that I didn't know it was open source obivously. I also haven't posted in this thread in over 20 hours, so asking me to let it go seems more something you need to do than I.
