9 ms·

This feels like an extremely dangerous slippery slope. The more patents on gameplay are granted, the more they'll be applied for by big companies who will event

• wahnfrieden 3y ago
  I hate that loading screen mini games was patented for many years. It’s a cultural theft orchestrated by govt like a crime racket, not an investment into innovation
  • bitwize 3y ago
    That patent has expired.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • teddyh 3y ago
      It was also an obviously invalid patent, as prior art existed from 1988: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fast_loader&oldid=1167423908#Cassette_tapes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fast_loader&oldid...>
      • wahnfrieden 3y ago
        Anyone can think of it and invent it independently, but you’d have been put in a cage if you acted on your original thought because someone else paid the protection money earlier
        • voxic11 3y ago
          You won't be put in a cage if you violate a patent. There are no criminal penalties for patent violations.
          • wahnfrieden 3y ago
            The threat is there if you don’t pay the damages. It all comes back to cages. Without the cage there is no damages payment, without the threat of damages payment there is no patent.
            • voxic11 3y ago
              Do you actually know of a case where someone went to jail because they failed to pay damages in a patent case? I don't think that is how it works. If you don't pay what you owe then the court will order your wages garnished and your property confiscated. And I guess if you intentionally interfere with either of those things you could end up in jail for violating a court order.
              • gabereiser 3y ago
                It’s that last bit that’s the kicker. IANAL, but if you blatantly refuse a court order, they can put you in a cage.
          • justinclift 3y ago
            > There are no criminal penalties for patent violations. You might be made permanently destitute and homeless however.
      • bitwize 3y ago
        You'd have to prove it in court, which means you'd have to outspend Namco Bandai on lawyers. Water under the bridge now, but still.
        • ekianjo 3y ago
          Proving prior art is often should be as simple as presenting an obvious proof and have the patent invalidated in the same day as long as the records are not debatable.
          • kmeisthax 3y ago
            What you're talking about almost exists, it's called an inter partes review[0]. The problem is, the records are almost always debatable. The legal system affords scoundrels plenty of opportunities to file paperwork. As it stands, IPR works enough that patent trolls are angry that it's too easy to get junk patents thrown out. But it still requires you to know in advance what to fight, to spend money on lawyers fighting it, and to delay actually using the invention you think isn't patented until the patent is actually thrown out. Some developer who independently invents loading screen mini-games probably isn't going to even know about the loading screen games patent until either legal tells them to remove the mini-game or they launch and get sued by Namco. An example of this: do you remember VRML chatrooms? Worlds, Inc was one of them, and they got US8082501B2[1], a patent on having a character in a multiplayer virtual world. They sued Activision[2] over the span of nine years, while also hitting up other game developers for money, including Microsoft[3]. Microsoft actually tried filing an IPR case[4], but the courts acted first to invalidate the patent before the IPR could go through[5]. [0] https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-review https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-revie... [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8082501B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8082501B2 [2] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activision-blizzard-sued-for-patent-infringement-of-virtual-worlds-usage https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activision-blizzard-sued-for-p... [3] https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6:20-cv-00872 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western... [4] https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00277 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00277 [5] https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00277%2F20 https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2021-00...
      • vvanders 3y ago
        Still didn't prevent us from taking a wide berth around the idea when I was working on my first title in the industry. The studio was aware of the patent and wasn't willing to take on any risk.
      • adrr 3y ago
        It’s only invalid if you the have the cash to fight an expensive court battle.
  • marcellus23 3y ago
    That patent expired a couple years ago IIRC, but I still haven't been seeing any loading minigames. Are games starting to do them yet?
    • WXLCKNO 3y ago
      Are loading times still a thing with new consoles? I don't own last gen consoles but I remember them making a big fuss about it.
    • UnlockedSecrets 3y ago
      It makes alot less sense now with SSD's being as fast as they are largely llimiting how long a loading screen will be.
      • robotnikman 3y ago
        It's funny when you play older games with things on the loading screen you only see them for a split second nowadays. I played Bayonetta for the first time a few months ago on my steam deck, and during loading times you were able to practice combos and stuff. Unfortunately it only lasted for a split second since it loads so fast from the SSD, I'm guessing it's original release on console disc allowed players a bit more time to try it while it was loading from the disc.
        • boastful_inaba 3y ago
          You can still hit a button to stop the loading from finishing, IIRC, and then just hang around on the combo practice screen as long as you like.
    • wahnfrieden 3y ago
      It doesn’t matter anymore
    • lukas099 3y ago
      If you can consider it a minigame, when you are skydiving down into the depths and the music and atmosphere changes in TOTK... that's a loading screen.
• naillo 3y ago
  Devils advocate but not sure how not allowing reusing mechanics leads to killing off novelty. If anything not allowing resuing mechanics should lead to developers being forced to invent new non cookie cutter mechanics to get around the patent.
  • makeitdouble 3y ago
    It prevents new games from coming up with novel application/combinations of these mechanics. For instance if Minecraft or any of the multide of crafting games had a patent on sticking together objects we wouldn't have BoTWToTK in the first place.
    • bluefirebrand 3y ago
      The example I go to is the Nemesis system of the Mordor games. Such a cool system for that type of game, and it's easy to imagine ways to use it in a ton of similar games. My understanding is that it's patented, though. So no one else is making anything like it. No other experiments about what else those mechanics can do.
      • alpaca128 3y ago
        I'm not sure if even that Nemesis system is really something completely new. You could probably get a similar emergent behaviour from older systems like goal-oriented action planning, and I wouldn't be surprised if games like Dwarf Fortress already had something similar.
        • bluefirebrand 3y ago
          That's probably true, but the specific implementation in the Mordor games is pretty unique. It's not just emergent gameplay, there's elements of deliberate action in there. The game selects certain enemies to become "resurrected" to come back stronger and become your longterm rivals. The enemies are also generated with perks and flaws based on the available game mechanics. These orcs return to fight you again, they often have upgrades themselves to resist or be immune to the ways you killed them previously. Taken individually none of these mechanics are novel I don't think. But this particular implementation is pretty unique. I'd love to see similar things in other games. Like Mech pilot rivalries in a Mecha game or something similar. But games aren't copying it, despite how well received it was. I can only think it's due to some kind of patent licensing issue.
• WhyNotHugo 3y ago
  Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own" ideas, so nobody else can compete. It takes capitalism from the realm of physical property to a realm of "ideas as property". Patents to software were are a mistake. Patents in general are a mistake IMHO.
  • imtringued 3y ago
    The irony is that patents exist to limit your private property rights. You worked hard and made your own game but it violates a broad patent and now you're being sued? Private property is sacred!
    • insanitybit 3y ago
      Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. If I spend years of my personal time inventing something and I patent it it prevents another larger company from using their existing infrastructure to ramp up way faster on my idea. One of the major issues with patents is that they take too long to expire. If the goal is for me to be able to get up and running before a big competitor takes the idea, I need a few years, not a lifetime.
      • lesuorac 3y ago
        I mean all of patent law originates from the Statue of Monopolies [1] which was literally designed to screw over small companies. I do find it amusing how much people call startup small and fast and yet some large company can swoop in and execute on their idea and knock them out of business if it weren't for a patent? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
        • insanitybit 3y ago
          I don't really think either of your statements are that interesting. The first is an extreme oversimplification about England's patent system origins from literally hundreds of years ago, the second is just some sort of straw man that I don't see as being relevant.
• kmeisthax 3y ago
  What you're describing already happened twenty years ago. Konami patented beatmania's keysounding[0] and DDR[1]'s control scheme and effectively had veto rights on competing rhythm games for decades. And they enforced those rights very strictly: - They sued Andamiro for Pump it Up, a competing dance game with five panels arranged diagonally. Andamiro was able to settle with Konami, possibly because they'd found some prior art that limited the DDR patent, which is the only reason why we still have PIU today. - They sued RoXoR for In The Groove, a proprietary[2] fork of StepMania, which is a DDR clone. In The Groove was designed as a conversion kit for DDR cabinets as well as having dedicabs produced by Andamiro and then themselves. RoXoR settled and Konami basically got to kill ITG as part of the settlement. - They sued Pentavision for having keysounding in DJMAX, a competing DJ game that was popular in Korea. They settled with the end result being that Konami gets a permanent share of DJMAX sales and Japanese distribution rights for that game. - They sued AmuseWorld for EZ2DJ, although to be fair this one looks literally identical to five-key beatmania. They... sort of just rebranded to EZ2AC and kept going, as far as I can tell from the Wikipedia page? Harmonix was involved with the ITG lawsuits at one point, so they wound up designing a more complicated and worse design-around for the keysounding patent in Guitar Hero. Other rhythm games not made by Konami also tend to have very generic keysounds (e.g. it just plays one sample). As for extracting rent... oh boy. There's a reason why rhythm games disappeared from American and European arcades. To explain that I first need to provide some context. The ownership model that western arcade operators are used to is that they buy a very expensive machine (in the $10k+ range) and then get to rent it out to people for $1 a play or so. This is why private collectors and retro arcades exist and used to be how rhythm games worked too. Konami changed all this in Japan over two decades ago. First they added online capability with eAmusement - you could pay a monthly fee to get your arcade cabinets auto-updated. Then they added score tracking through NFC cards through the same service. Around 2011 they switched to a licensing model where arcade owners have to pre-pay a rev share for each play, and as part of this, the machines have always-online DRM. If your machine isn't connected to Konami's eAmusement VPN, it won't boot, and if your revshare isn't paid up it won't accept payment from users. Outside of East Asia, arcade operators balked at all of this. Originally this just meant not having eAmusement passes to save scores on, but after they moved to licensing instead of ownership, we stopped getting DDR cabinets altogether. Dave & Busters still wanted to operate DDR though, so they somehow got Round1[3] to negotiate a joint order of DDR White Cabs running a special build of DDR A with an offline mode. You're probably reading this and thinking that D&B is the good guy, except my local Round1's arcade techs hate them for this, because major game updates are now expensive upgrade kits that frequently brick machines[4]. Furthermore, D&B is penny-pinching right now, so the A3 upgrade for all the NA-region DDR cabs got delayed by like a year while Round1 renegotiated with Konami. If you're not D&B or Round1, you either operate decades-old DDR cabinets, Pump It Up[5], or StepManiaX, another dance game by the ITG people with better patent design-arounds. [0] When you press a button, the game makes the sound. It's why you know immediately when you suck at Beatmania. [1] DanceDanceRevolution, not East Germany. (Formerly?) Known as "Dancing Stage" in Europe for this reason. [2] They convinced StepMania's developers to relicense to MIT so they could license songs for ITG [3] Round1 is an arcade chain from Osaka with a US branch and a frightening ability to get Konami to license import cabs for the US. It is the closest you'll get to the Japanese arcade experience in the US and you could probably film a shot-for-shot recreation of Lost in Translation in there. [4] https://twitter.com/EvilDave219/status/1691599463276564579 https://twitter.com/EvilDave219/status/1691599463276564579 [5] I have no clue if Andamiro's also charges revshare and requires always-online but I suspect they are.
• sooheon 3y ago
  Great link. Another classic on patents as rent-seeking: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm > intellectual property is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty.
• emmanueloga_ 3y ago
  I agree this is not good! Note that "slippery slope" is usually used to refer to a logical fallacy [1]. Maybe this is something that could "snowball out of control"? [2] I'm not sure what other phrases could be used. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing
  • kiawe_fire 3y ago
    I tend to argue that “slippery slope” is not actually a logical fallacy the way others (e.g. straw man) are. A slippery slope is often a legitimate concern. Using it as the sole means to shut down an idea is often disingenuous, but so, too, is shutting down any concerns of a ”snowball effect” by calling it a logical fallacy.
    • Tainnor 3y ago
      Like any logical fallacy, the slippery slope is about the general validity of a logical inference - and not about the truth of its conclusion. The slippery slope fallacy argues that "if X happens, then eventually Y will happen as well", where Y is a more extreme version of X. This is not a valid logical inference. That doesn't mean that there are never cases where X actually leads to Y. Just as calling out "appeal to authority" doesn't mean that an expert isn't often right, or just as "correlation is not causation" doesn't imply that correlation is never causation.
  • syockit 3y ago
    The recognition of the phrase as a logical fallacy comes after the phrase starts to be widely used, not the other way around. If everyone starts saying "snowball out of control", then eventually the fallacy will be known as "snowball out of control" fallacy instead.
• Buttons840 3y ago
  > owning and extracting rent on things rather than actually producing them Many of our IP laws were put in place to incentivize creators, to increase creative output throughout society, if they no longer serve this purpose they should be repealed. Those who benefit will act as though these IP laws are a fundamental right, but if society at large decides they are no longer beneficial, there's nothing morally wrong with removing them.