[HN Gopher] Nintendo is trying to patent some broad Tears of the...
___________________________________________________________________
Nintendo is trying to patent some broad Tears of the Kingdom
mechanics
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 223 points
Date : 2023-08-16 11:25 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kotaku.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (kotaku.com)
| gcau wrote:
| What happens to a game developer who has never seen TOTK or these
| patents, who just happens to converge on the same idea, and put
| in their game? And what if lots of games already do the idea but
| just didn't patent it?
| hcks wrote:
| This makes 0 sense from a business perspective. Their moat is
| clearly in their brand, from what I've seen TotK game mechanics
| look frankly unoriginal and subpar
| feoren wrote:
| It makes 0 sense from the perspective of the business of making
| and selling a whole ton of great games and making oodles of
| money on them. It makes lots of sense from the perspective of
| the business of abusing a corrupt legal system to bully,
| coerce, and destroy small studios.
|
| It's pretty obvious that large corporations will only make
| money via producing actual value if they have absolutely no
| other choice. Give them the possibility of making money without
| having to actually produce anything, via corruption, rent-
| seeking, bullying, monopolies, and the like, and they
| absolutely will do that instead (or at the very least, in
| addition).
| rawling wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37062820
|
| (Commentary on a different source, 1 week ago)
| colechristensen wrote:
| Oof this is awful.
|
| TOTK has at least half a billion in sales, they don't need to try
| to extract any more money through patents.
|
| Who benefits from this? Certainly not consumers, doubtful even
| Nintendo.
|
| The whole thing about culture is copying and adapting things
| which have been done before. Video games would suck if innovation
| could only happen once every twenty years.
|
| So many other things are way behind because innovation is blocked
| behind paywalls.
|
| I can't articulate exactly what it should be, but patents need to
| be a whole lot more narrow in allowable scope and duration.
|
| And organizations patenting things which wouldn't actually
| threaten their products or market position should be shamed.
| Spoom wrote:
| Why wouldn't Nintendo benefit? Patents allow them to extract
| rent from their competitors. Just license where applicable and
| get $5 per sale of your competitors' games, or delay / block
| your competitors' games when you specifically don't like them
| (especially indies, who don't have the capability to fight or
| effectively negotiate.)
| hospitalJail wrote:
| >TOTK has at least half a billion in sales, they don't need to
| try to extract any more money through patents.
|
| Yeah but it killed lots of good will. Lots of people realized
| TotK is basically BOTW1.5 and BOTW wasnt all that great.
|
| I theorize that TotK will have been the high point of sales for
| the series, and future Zelda games will not quite get so high.
| They had marketing + fanboys echoing, I think a lot of the
| fanboys were disappointed.
| mucle6 wrote:
| BotW and TotK are both incredible games in my opinion. I
| would love to travel into the future to play the next
| installment
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Who benefits from this?
|
| Potentially smaller game development studios.
|
| It's fairly commonplace in Japan for a bigger company in an
| industry to file, hold, and defend patents with their better
| funded legal departments so that the industry at large can use
| them without fear of patent trolls or wanton infringers.
|
| I am, of course, being fairly generous here.
| zebomon wrote:
| Perhaps even a little overly generous given Nintento's
| extensive history of litigiousness.
| skizm wrote:
| In theory, if I were the first person to make an FPS game a while
| back, could I have patented FPS as a game mechanic?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Automaton, a gaming website that focuses on Japanese games like
| Zelda, has a roundup of the 32 patents Nintendo put forth. Some
| of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including things
| like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player target
| enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike wherever the
| arrow lands.
|
| That has... always... been a feature of D&D.
|
| The TotK implementation is incredibly awkward, just like every
| other part of the TotK interface. None of the mechanics work
| well. ("Want to use an item in combat? Just pause for twenty
| seconds while you d-pad your way through a list of everything in
| your inventory!") No one would seek to copy a mechanic from TotK.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > No one would seek to copy a mechanic from TotK.
|
| I wouldn't be too sure... Plenty of copycats around, that will
| even copy the less than ideal bits of the game, because it's
| still part of the overall experience.
|
| Example: Soulslike games don't have a map or quest markers. It
| would be a good quality of life addition, but pretty much none
| of the Soulslike clones add quest markers.
| tanjtanjtanj wrote:
| I've never played a souls-like that would be improved by
| having quest markers. Most of them don't even have quests as
| such.
| lloeki wrote:
| > That has... always... been a feature of D&D.
|
| I'd argue that, going beyond the heroic fantasy setting, laser-
| painting a target to rain some Hellfire has been a thing since
| forever and a half, and is essentially the same core mechanics.
|
| I'd also argue that Nintendo is perfectly aware of that, it
| doesn't take them much energy to put out some patent
| submissions out there, some may pass, and then it's a
| deterrence-by-litigation game: if you don't have deep pockets
| then you'd better stay clear or risk being sued to oblivion
| should Nintendo feel like challenging you (irrespective of
| whether the patents hold any water)
| otikik wrote:
| Someone will eventually manage to find a way to patent patenting,
| at this rate.
| OtomotO wrote:
| Or law systems
| amelius wrote:
| Aren't these design patents (as opposed to utility patents)?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More discussion a week ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37062820
| Madmallard wrote:
| game mechanics are not patentable. This is ludicrous to the nth
| degree
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| There have been some decisions in that direction
| (https://www.nutter.com/ip-law-bulletin/no-dice-for-gaming-
| pa...) but there's no per se rule against patenting game
| mechanics.
|
| Also, the story here is talking about Japanese patents. I have
| no idea if game mechanics are patentable there.
| dathinab wrote:
| the truly absurd part is that there is priority art, en -mass
|
| and when you patent something you have to sign that you did
| proper research and found that there is priority art etc.
|
| parents aren't a first tries to patent it wins system, but
| first tries to patent something which isn't publicly
| available/known wins system
|
| can we pleas start hugely penalizing companies for blandly
| deceiving the patent office, i.e. doing what I would say is
| systematic fraud
|
| (and no longer make the patent office have the number of
| patents they grant being a positive/desired metric, too)
| kevincox wrote:
| I have to say that I hate that Nintendo makes great games,
| because the company is awful. They are very controlling (ex: you
| can only play on their hardware), very litigious, create trouble
| with legal things like emulation and overall aren't pleasant.
|
| I no longer give them my money. I would rethink this if they made
| the games available for PC or something more open. But the more I
| hear the less likely I am to start buying anything they produce.
| NickC25 wrote:
| They do make great games and have a very controlling ecosystem,
| which honestly I have no problem with - it's their IP and they
| can do what they want with it. Much like Apple, their
| integration with hardware is quite tight and their first-party
| content is usually really well done. Miles better than the
| first-party outputs from Sony or Nintendo.
|
| Apparently, though, their corporate culture is VERY Japanese
| and kind of crappy. I know someone who negotiated with them
| directly and although the gentleman was and remains a massive
| fan of Nintendo, the experience put a bad taste in his mouth.
|
| Wish Nintendo would also listen to fans and give some of their
| lesser IP a fresh coat of paint. Can't believe it's been nearly
| 20 years since a new F-Zero, and probably over a decade since
| we've had a decent Star Fox. Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong, Metroid
| and Earthbound could all use some love, too.
| zagrebian wrote:
| So what video games do you play?
| matt_s wrote:
| Great games, maybe. Repetitive use of same IP over 30+ years,
| 100%. Its like Fast N Furious or other movie franchises that
| just publish a slightly different version on some cadence. If
| you really like it, then yes those would be great games for
| you.
|
| I recently fired up the original NES Zelda game and it was fun.
| I also got a switch and BoTW and the original is more fun.
| There is so much filler and repetitive game mechanics that
| don't add to the game at all in BoTW. Game companies keep
| adding stuff to lengthen game play loops and this ends up in
| tedious, repetitive gaming sessions which after some point I
| don't find enjoyable.
|
| Its art though so to each their own and in my opinion you
| shouldn't be allowed to patent art.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Every fps is just new graphics and few mechanic changes, no
| more different than sequels, at least Nintendo does it better
| than anyone
| PsylentKnight wrote:
| You say the games don't change significantly, then you say
| the games have changed in a way you don't like.
|
| Yes, they use the same IP's for decades but they remain
| relevant because they do new things with those IP's. BoTW
| completely bucked the Zelda formula. ToTK was so successful
| because they didn't try to just ride off the success of its
| predecessor - they did a lot of new stuff.
|
| A far better comparison to Fast N Furious would be Madden.
| matt_s wrote:
| I get tired of the same story being repeated, maybe I could
| have worded it better - thats the part that they just
| recycle all the time. Yeah they aren't releasing new games
| on a yearly basis but when they do its the same characters
| and nearly the same story lines. BoTW is about rescuing the
| princess, so is the orig Zelda. Yes there are different
| mini-boss fights, puzzles, etc. and they can be fun but its
| certainly not a new original story.
|
| I like how with Batman and Joker movies different
| directors/actors have a different take on the characters or
| setting (gritty vs campy humor, etc.) and I don't mind
| similar story elements being re-used. I don't like that in
| most video games for some reason. Horizon Zero Dawn was
| awesome, same with Last of Us (game), haven't looked at a
| sequels, they look like more of the same. Its okay for me
| to not like that in this art form and its okay for you (or
| others) to like it.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >I get tired of the same story being repeated,
|
| But "Link, the hero of time saves Zelda from Ganon, the
| great evil" is the whole point of the story in the Zelda
| games, that these three fates are intertwined for
| eternity and meant to constantly dance their dance.
|
| >I like how with Batman and Joker movies different
| directors/actors have a different take on the characters
| or setting
|
| Zelda does this massively, there's multiple
| interpretations of these characters because they are
| different living beings in the same lineage or whatever.
| Consider the toon games, where "Zelda" is a pirate girl
| with zero "Royal" character attributes.
|
| I don't know what you are expecting or asking for. Hell,
| BoTW is ALSO another re-interpretation of the story and
| characters
| matt_s wrote:
| I'm not asking for anything, Nintendo is going to do
| whatever they want with their video game art form. I'm
| just commenting that I've found for most video games with
| story elements I don't like repeat/rehashing a story. For
| whatever reason I'm ok with that sometimes in movies. I
| got through most of BoTW but just can't pick it back up
| to finish, so I don't.
|
| Maybe the difference for me is with a movie, I'm just
| along for the ride and have no input into anything, but
| with a video game I'm playing the main character and when
| I've played that same exact main character with that same
| overall story arc I just don't find it interesting. The
| other element I think is my age, I'm finding less
| consumable media (tv, movies, games, books, sports)
| enjoyable as I get older. There are things I still really
| enjoy but genres of them that I used to and now I don't
| find interesting.
| _gabe_ wrote:
| > Repetitive use of same IP over 30+ years, 100%. Its like
| Fast N Furious or other movie franchises that just publish a
| slightly different version on some cadence.
|
| Go play the original Super Mario Bros, then Mario N64, then
| Mario Sunshine, then Paper Mario (wii edition), then Super
| Mario Galaxy, then Super Mario Odyssey. Sure all those games
| have Mario in it, but they're only the same in the sense that
| the Mandalorian takes place in the same galaxy as Star Wars
| Ep 4. I would never compare this franchise (or Zelda) with
| Fast and Furious or even something like CoD. And I don't know
| how you can call the IP repetitive when the only constant in
| all the games I listed is Mario. It's not like FIFA that
| updates every year with a new roster and the exact same game.
|
| The reason I love playing these game is because they _do_
| innovate and create completely new games even if it's the
| same franchise.
| larrik wrote:
| I disagree with everything you said, lol. Besides the
| original NEW Zelda being fun.
|
| Nintendo is very sparing in how often they make mainline
| games in their IP (besides Pokemon). Mario has had one main
| 3d game in a decade. Zelda had 6 years between BoTW and ToTK,
| and 5 years between BoTW and it's predecessor. Everyone of
| those (Mario and Zelda) until ToTK was completely different,
| with a different feel and different mechanics.
| larrik wrote:
| too late to edit, but I meant "NES" Zelda, not "NEW" Zelda
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| I think a lot of what makes the games special is the level
| of polish vs other studios. Polish takes a lot of time,
| which is why most studios don't do it to the degree
| Nintendo seems to.
| ninedays wrote:
| Couldn't disagree more with the first 2 paragraphs. It feels
| like saying Apple publishes a slightly different version of
| its iPhone every year. I think you will find plenty of
| differences - even major ones between the first iPhone and
| the latest one. Same thing with Nintendo games. IMHO,
| Nintendo is probably the best developer in the world and have
| proven this again and again. Completely agree with your last
| paragraph though.
| circuit10 wrote:
| Honestly iPhones aren't changing much any more, at least in
| a way that matters to most people
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Nintendo doesnt make great games. There is a phrase 'Graded on
| the Nintendo Curve'
|
| Nintendo games are rated highly by other Nintendo gamers, but
| people from the outside see things significantly more clear.
| TillE wrote:
| "Nintendo gamers" aren't really a thing, unless you're a kid
| with only one console.
|
| Everyone I know who loves games has a Switch in addition to
| at least a PS5/Xbox if not a gaming PC, and they play
| everything. Nintendo games are unique. They're a legitimate
| reason to still buy a six year old console, and millions of
| people do.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > Everyone I know who loves games has a Switch in addition
| to at least a PS5/Xbox if not a gaming PC, and they play
| everything.
|
| 2021 was the first year that _half_ of households own at
| least one game console -- how many of those households
| owned just the one?
|
| There is something special to folks on HN who don't realize
| the bubble they live in.
|
| https://www.cta.tech/Resources/Newsroom/Media-
| Releases/2021/...
| spacemadness wrote:
| Yeah, ok.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| "Nintendo games actually suck, you are just too much a
| {dummy,shill,fanboi} to realize it!"
|
| Funny how these gaming faction war posts haven't changed one
| bit from 15+ years ago when I was a preteen arguing about
| Xbox vs PS2 vs Gamecube on NeoGAF forums.
|
| I just hope anyone continuing the tradition on HN are no
| older than that.
| brightlancer wrote:
| Nintendo games are a (meta)genre and not everyone likes that,
| but it doesn't mean they're Objectively Bad(tm). It's a
| matter of preference.
| mcphage wrote:
| > people from the outside see things significantly more clear
|
| _Somebody_ isn 't seeing things clearly, that's for sure.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| If you even hate Nintendo, then what company do you like?
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Yeah, Nintendo is an awful company. Unlike some other awful
| game companies, at least they create pretty good games.
|
| But they really love trying to squeeze every cent and milking
| their customers to a point where it's disgusting.
|
| My partner purchased a the latest Zelda and I can't even play
| it on my account on the same device: I need to buy another copy
| of the game (which obviously will never happen).
| alexilliamson wrote:
| That's odd... My partner bought the game and I can play it on
| the same device with my profile.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Digital copies are linked to one account, physical copies
| can be shared freely.
|
| Don't buy digital, it's never worth it.
| alexilliamson wrote:
| She bought digital and I can play it though.
| circuit10 wrote:
| Buying digital is worth it to me because I'm very
| disorganised and I will lose the cartridges
| astura wrote:
| They can be downloaded to a switch and once they are on
| the switch an account playing that switch can play any
| digital games on the switch. They don't even tell you
| which account "owns" the game.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I think this is only true if they are local Switch
| profiles.
|
| If they are linked to a different Nintendo online account
| they need to buy their own copy of the game?
|
| Maybe I'm wrong about that...
| astura wrote:
| You're wrong about that.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Interesting. I spent a bit of time reading Nintendo's FAQ
| on this topic and it seems you're right.
|
| They are a lot more permissive with their digital copies
| than I expected, honestly.
| ygjb wrote:
| My kids are both actively playing TOTK on their profiles
| on my switch with a single digital purchase.
|
| There have been other games where this has been
| problematic (Animal crossing I think limited some
| features per device instead of per account).
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Well you have some odd settings. My nieces and nephews can
| download and play games on their switch hundreds of miles
| away from me using my profile. Whenever I get a new game they
| are excited because now they have that game as well as long
| as they use my profile on their account.
|
| Nintendo does a lot of stupid shit but this is one of the few
| things I think they have been really good about.
| astura wrote:
| This is wrong - Nintendo allows people who are using the same
| switch to play each other's games that are downloaded to the
| switch. It's not even labeled anywhere which account that
| game belongs to. My husband an I pay each other's digital
| purchases all the time.
| semiquaver wrote:
| I don't disagree with the sentiment but you're straight wrong
| on the need to buy multiple copies of a game to play on
| different profiles on a single switch.
| [deleted]
| sleepybrett wrote:
| all companies are awful once they get big enough to hire
| awful lawyers.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Your partner needs to change the home console on their
| account to the one you play on. Then you'll be able to play
| with different accounts.
|
| Usually most people only have one Switch so this never is a
| problem. However, if you've switched consoles and you didn't
| do System Transfer, you need to manually switch over the home
| console in order to get your offline play rights back.
|
| Alternatively your partner may have explicitly set their home
| account to someone else's system. There's a mildly
| pirate-y[0] thing you can do with a friend where you log into
| your account on their system and they log into your system
| with their account, and then you have a shared game pool. In
| order to be able to play on your own account you need to swap
| the home console associations around so your friend's Switch
| is your home console and vice versa. But if you do this you
| can never play your own games on other accounts, since your
| friend's the one who took that half of the license.
|
| [0] As in, it bends the rules of the DRM in ways Nintendo
| probably does not intend and thus probably violates a license
| agreement somewhere
| mpsprd wrote:
| Wait, aren't patents on gameplay inapplicable? I thought this is
| why game clones are commonplace, so much that the term "x clone"
| entered the vernacular for video games.
| coldpie wrote:
| No, you're thinking of copyright:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_v._Amusement_World
| rollcat wrote:
| Context: I've nearly 100%'d BotW(+DLC)+TotK (except for the Korok
| seeds). Spoilers might follow.
|
| > Some of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including
| things like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player
| target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike
| wherever the arrow lands.
|
| To be quite blunt, the sages' abilities are implemented
| absolutely horribly in this game, doubly so when compared to the
| similar system in BotW (which was excellent). The only ability
| that is actually usable (and only really outside of combat) is
| Tulin's gust of wind; everything else is a struggle to make
| useful.
|
| You have to walk up to a sage (they keep running around trying to
| fight enemies; and they all have an identical color palette; so
| it's super awkward and error-prone), press a button, and only
| then you get to make use of the ability. The more sages you
| summon, the bigger the crowd, the bigger the problem. Even the
| one sage that does not appear as a ghost still has a broadly
| similar palette (and on top of that, identical to a class of
| enemies). Compare with BotW, where you also get broadly similar
| abilities, but using each one was a decision you could execute in
| a split second using a dedicated key combo/mechanic, and all of
| them were directly viable in combat.
|
| If Nintendo were to hold a patent on this bullshit and thusly
| prevent it from being implemented in any other game, they'd do
| the gamers a favour.
|
| > Who knows if these patents actually go anywhere? But when game
| design concepts are gatekept like this, it only leads to a loss
| of innovation for other devs.
|
| True! There's plenty of prior art for the remaining patents, so I
| sincerely doubt a lot of this would hold up in court. But the
| fact that this makes news at all is just proof of how rotten the
| system is; the patent doesn't have to be standing on a firm
| ground before it can successfully deter from climbing the
| shoulders of giants, which is foundational to innovation.
|
| Nintendo has always been famous for pushing innovative gameplay,
| rather than endlessly refining the graphics on yet-another "next-
| gen" console that has all the same last year's titles in a new
| package. Whatever patents they can hold, I don't think it would
| help them: patents only help entrench your current position;
| Nintendo was always about moving forward.
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > If Nintendo were to hold a patent on this bullshit and thusly
| prevent it from being implemented in any other game, they'd do
| the gamers a favour.
|
| I wonder if there's "real life" of such patent (i.e. patent a
| process or method to ensure it is never used because it's so
| bad).
|
| (as for the example illustrated: I absolutely agree that it is
| a terrible game mechanic that's doubly infuriating since the
| previous game had a perfectly serviceable system)
| ot wrote:
| > To be quite blunt, the sages' abilities are implemented
| absolutely horribly in this game
|
| I agree 100%. I loved the game, but I don't understand how
| anyone at Nintendo thought that these mechanics were a good
| idea. To make matters even worse, the button is the same to
| pick up an item. I can't count how many times I was about to
| pick up an item, and a sage passed by, hijacking the button
| (especially disruptive when it's Mineru).
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Also pretty disruptive when it's Tulin (and it usually is for
| some reason) and the thing you were trying to pick up goes
| flying.
| gh02t wrote:
| Don't forget that you use e.g. the lightning strike ability
| as a long range attack, yet the avatar you have to interact
| with tends to aggressively charge directly into close range.
| I gave up using the lightning ability because I just get hit
| if I run close enough while awkwardly fumbling around until I
| find the magic spot to press the A button.
|
| The fact that you can dismiss the sages through a hastily
| bolted on menu interaction tells you that they knew it was
| annoying. If it worked well you'd never need to.
| philistine wrote:
| Being hard to use and not very useful feels like a clear
| design choice to me. They were too good in the previous game,
| so they all got a big ol' round of the nerf hammer.
|
| And they moved them to interactions next to the sages because
| they sincerely overloaded the controls of that game.
|
| The whole game would have been better without any sages'
| power.
| bowsamic wrote:
| The worst part is that you get the only useful one first if
| you go where the game obviously prods you to (north west),
| setting the expectation that all the abilities would be
| useful. Unfortunately they are so bad it's actually comical.
|
| Imo the game kind of feels thrown together in general. I
| think the worst part is that they traded the open feeling of
| adventure in the original game, which felt quite lean on
| mechanics and different things to do, for a much more common
| open world style of gameplay. Now it feels like any other
| checkbox open world game, a huge list of things to do and
| going through them one by one. BotW never felt like that
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Well that's better than if you got his ability last.
| Imagine playing 100 hours and then being like WHAT, YOU CAN
| DO THAT? I COULD HAVE DONE THAT THE WHOLE TIME?
|
| I phrase it like that because I'm about 160 hours in to
| ToTK right now and just last night I found something that
| would have made me fantastically wealthy the whole way
| through if I had known about it. Now it doesn't matter.
| rollcat wrote:
| I've heard of quite a bunch of people who went quite far
| without realising you can get the paraglider. From the
| promo materials & the tutorial it definitely seemed like
| the game was meant to be played using skydiving and Zonai
| wings.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Naturally, I picked him up last, but I thought the boulder
| guy had his uses. Being able to break through walls without
| consuming hammers was definitely a plus. Then again, the
| cooldown was so long that it became quite irritating to use
| it for demolition purposes.
| spaceisballer wrote:
| Jumping on the train. Companions in general are very
| annoying, and having four is next level annoying. I've run
| into the same issues, makes the game not fun when you go to
| pick items up and initiate their power. Especially when their
| powers have a tendency to kill the frame rate. I know you can
| dismiss them but since some parts of the gameplay center on
| their mechanics it's very annoying. I could do without
| companions in an open world game.
| schnebbau wrote:
| Humans are the worst.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| I maintain that patents are unequivocally bad across the board no
| matter who holds them. We like to subscribe to this myth of the
| "small-time inventor" being able to capitalize on their invention
| by requiring copycats to pay them licensing fees.
|
| This is a myth, and even if it were true, the small-time inventor
| in that scenario is just as much of a barrier to human progress
| as the large corporation that will inevitably gate-keep the
| invention and extract every drop of profit they can from it for
| as long as legally possible.
|
| Patents are just a way to kneecap you and all countries allied
| with you when compared with countries that don't honor those
| patents.
|
| The same goes for IP in general, but that's a whole other can of
| worms...
| stasmo wrote:
| I agree with you, but one could argue that R&D money comes from
| a desire to patent.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| And I would point to the entirety of Open Source software
| sam0x17 wrote:
| One could, and one could counter with "then that is R&D done
| for the wrong reasons"
|
| This is why we (at least used to) have things like wide-
| sweeping federally funded research grants aimed at advancing
| science and technology in areas and ways short-sighted
| profit-seeking R&D can seldom touch
|
| Not discovering a thing is almost better than someone
| discovering it and then patenting it, imo. It's negative
| progress.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| > Some of them are specific to Link's latest adventure, including
| things like Riju's lightning ability, which lets the player
| target enemies with a bow and bring down a lighting strike
| wherever the arrow lands.
|
| I'm sure I've seen this mechanic about twenty years ago
| somewhere.
|
| > Link and the objects he rides on move together at the same
| speed, rather than Link being technically stationary on top of a
| moving object as is common in the physics of other games.
|
| This is just how physics work. Aside from the absurdity of trying
| to patent "simulating basic physics" , I'm sure simulations for
| this have been written countless times in the past decades.
|
| The sad thing about this is that stupid patents are often
| accepted just fine, and Nintendo can later try and enforce them
| against some little studio that can't afford the lawyers to
| defend itself.
| cornedor wrote:
| > I'm sure I've seen this mechanic about twenty years ago
| somewhere.
|
| I've indeed seen this multiple times for example in Skyrim [1]
| and in Minecraft (trough mods)
|
| I think I've seen every concept listed in the article before.
| Let's hope they don't get much out of it.
|
| 1:
| https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Arcane_Archer_Pack_Items#Lig...
| AkBKukU wrote:
| > Minecraft (trough mods)
|
| Modding isn't even needed, the Channeling enchantment for
| tridents does this:
| https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Channeling
| thfuran wrote:
| There needs to be penalty for filing patents that are utter
| shit. At the very minimum, trying to actually enforce such
| patents should constitute abuse of process or malicious
| prosecution.
| mtsr wrote:
| This. Patents (excepting those describing otherwise
| unreproducible inventions) have no real downsides.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| >> Link and the objects he rides on move together at the same
| speed, rather than Link being technically stationary on top of
| a moving object as is common in the physics of other games.
|
| >This is just how physics work. Aside from the absurdity of
| trying to patent "simulating basic physics" , I'm sure
| simulations for this have been written countless times in the
| past decades.
|
| It's not even a simulation with say, friction (which would be
| simulating physics). It's literally sample code from PhysX
| fifteen years ago, where if you're standing on a physics
| object, your speed = physics object's speed, at every
| simulation frame.
|
| They've been granted a patent on code so simple a CS grad with
| a game dev specialisation writes for class.
| sebstefan wrote:
| I'm still upset about that Bandai patent on loading screen mini
| games...
| Y_Y wrote:
| Oh shit. I remember playing mini games while waiting for some
| old Dragonball game to load and always wondered since then why
| every game didn't do it.
|
| Honorable mention for MTV UK who had "Ad-Break Pong" on the old
| "red button" interactive TV which let you play pong on top of
| commercials.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| That ended in 2015 but yeah that is silly.
| lloeki wrote:
| Would Broken Sword's PC version "play a tetris-like game while
| install completes" count as prior art?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| .. if only somebody had gotten a patent for loot boxes.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| What a great idea. We could extend the validity of the patent
| forever on condition that licensing fees constantly rise.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| There's a few actually, although they don't seem to be direct
| "this is a lootbox" patent. That said, the concept of lootboxes
| goes back to things like trading cards from sealed packages,
| e.g. baseball cards.
|
| Lootbox patents:
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US9744446B2/en
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US9666026B1/en?oq=US966602...
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US9789406B2/en
|
| Trading card patents:
|
| https://patents.justia.com/patent/8100402
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US5803501A/en
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I know you're jesting, but Nintendo holds patents for their
| gacha system in Fire Emblem Heroes.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > On top of trying to patent the tech, Nintendo seeks to patent
| the loading screen that shows up when the player is fast-
| traveling across Hyrule. This specifically refers to the screen
| that shows the map transition from the player's starting point to
| their destination.
|
| This is such a common trope that the Muppets even parodied it:
| https://youtu.be/yIQKVITyaMI
| eredengrin wrote:
| The only game mechanic I want to see Nintendo patent is brawl
| tripping. Probably not necessary as it seems other fighting games
| haven't seen the brilliance of such a mechanic, but may as well
| play it safe in case others become enlightened.
| MaxfordAndSons wrote:
| Brawl in general was the perfect encapsulation of what is wrong
| with Nintendo (though tbf they have course corrected somewhat
| in Smash Ultimate) - Melee was a game that allowed an
| incredibly high skill ceiling with it's high speed and myriad
| advanced techniques, which birthed the biggest grassroots
| competitive fighting game scene ever. But Nintendo hadn't
| conceived of Smash as a competitive game and so they went
| alllll the way out of their way to shut that shit down in the
| next iteration. Lowered the speed of the game, made it way
| floatier so combos are harder, ensured there were no advanced
| movement techniques, and even introduced mandatory bullshit rng
| like the tripping mechanic.
| manojlds wrote:
| [flagged]
| partitioned wrote:
| You think these patents are reasonable? Or you think Kotaku
| should ignore writing a story about leaked content that they
| had no role in leaking?
|
| Your brain on drugs folks
| manojlds wrote:
| I am just saying, Kotaku is just doing this with vendetta.
| TotK patents were already talked about in detail in another
| post. Comment is only about THIS article and motivation
| behind it, not about the patents.
|
| The other thread -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37062820
| Ygg2 wrote:
| Patents are reasonable?
|
| Like patenting laser pointer cat exercise or log based dog
| exercise.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| I can understand Nintendo's actions because Genshin Impact's
| success was entirely based off copying Breath of the Wild.
| loupol wrote:
| 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 eventually end up with big patent
| portfolios they can use to shut down other games from reusing
| cool mechanics, whether from big companies or indie studios.
|
| The potential for killing off novelty entirely (or slowing it
| down to a trickle) in game development is definitely there long
| term.
|
| This reminds of Cory Doctorow's recent essay on the trend towards
| owning and extracting rent on things rather than actually
| producing them[0].
|
| [0] https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| 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
|
| 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing
| kiawe_fire wrote:
| 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.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That patent has expired.
| [deleted]
| teddyh wrote:
| It was also an obviously invalid patent, as prior art
| existed from 1988:
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fast_loader&old
| id...>
| adrr wrote:
| It's only invalid if you the have the cash to fight an
| expensive court battle.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You won't be put in a cage if you violate a patent. There
| are no criminal penalties for patent violations.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > There are no criminal penalties for patent violations.
|
| You might be made permanently destitute and homeless
| however.
| vvanders wrote:
| 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.
| bitwize wrote:
| 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.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| In USA and UK, AIUI, you can submit prior art without
| being involved (in UK you can do it anonymously; someone
| is looking at using an AI system to do this
| automatically!). Importantly there is a limited window of
| time for such submissions. In USA it's called Third Party
| Pre-issuance Submissions, 35 USC 122;
| https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html. In
| UK it's called Third-Party Observations (Patents Act
| S.21). IIRC, WIPO and EPO have these too, I imagine it's
| common to all/most patent systems.
| ekianjo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-revie...
|
| [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8082501B2
|
| [2] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/activision-blizzard-
| sued-for-p...
|
| [3] https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20
| Western...
|
| [4]
| https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-00277
|
| [5] https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-
| filings%2FIPR2021-00...
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Don't forget the patents on CONTROLLERS VIBRATING for
| fucks sake. The reason the original PS3 controller didn't
| have vibration was because sony wanted to avoid paying
| the protection racket one time.
|
| As if making something buzz is fucking "non-obvious"
| marcellus23 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| lukas099 wrote:
| 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.
| UnlockedSecrets wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It doesn't matter anymore
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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
|
| [5] I have no clue if Andamiro's also charges revshare and
| requires always-online but I suspect they are.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Ouch!
|
| What I find funny about it is that Breath of the Wild is a
| story-based game and competes with a movie or a book in a
| certain respect, but that DDG has no plot (though you could
| apply the "scene analysis" from the Meisner school to a
| situation like that.)
|
| For a game like "Breath of the Wild" one is left wondering if
| you could patent a trope in a movie, as opposed to depending
| on this kind of IP law
|
| https://theipcenter.com/2019/03/copyright-cartoon-images/
|
| but DDR is something entirely different.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| What's the significance of 0? Is it just playing a sound on
| the key press?
|
| Is it something more nuanced like playing the sound on the
| press without waiting for the next frame to tick?
| lewispollard wrote:
| It's just playing a sound on the keypress, but each note in
| the song has an individual sound assigned to it that
| matches the song. In Beatmania iirc, the sound assigned to
| each note is the section of the song itself, meaning if you
| miss a note, the song stops playing until you hit a correct
| note.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| It's not just if you miss a note, the song stops playing.
| If you're off on your timing, the song plays off. If you
| press the wrong button, _the wrong part of the song
| plays_. All of this is immediate and obvious audio
| feedback that you don 't really get from other rhythm
| games, because all the workarounds for beatmania
| keysounding _can 't do this_.
|
| You know those YouTube videos of people playing whole
| songs on a DAW control surface? beatmania is literally
| just that with a scrolling note chart and a judgment of
| your performance, except it came out in like 1997.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes, keysounding in beatmania is literally just playing a
| sound when you press a key.
|
| Harmonix keysounding works a bit differently. If you press
| the strum bar with the wrong frets pressed, it plays a
| generic error noise and cuts out the guitar/bass/drum
| portion of the song until you play another note correctly.
| It's arguably easier to chart since you just need separate
| audio tracks for each instrument, but the main reason this
| was done was to avoid a second Konami lawsuit.
| iamjackg wrote:
| Do you have a source on that being the reason? I'm
| extremely curious. The amount of work it takes to
| keysound a track (and figure out hot to not make it
| awkward at lower difficulty levels) seems like a much
| more reasonable reason not to do it, especially since
| there is some evidence[0] that Konami and Activision
| might have struck a deal for patent access, and even
| ended up collaborating to manufacture and distribute
| Guitar Hero Arcade.
|
| [0]: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/exclusive-
| exploring-i-guita...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I don't have hard sources on Harmonix keysounding and may
| have misremembered things[0], or this might just be
| community misinformation. The article you are linking to
| concerns Guitar Hero III, which was made by Neversoft
| after Activision bought RedOctane _without_ Harmonix. At
| that point they had enough money to pay for patent
| licenses. The amount of money being spent on guitar games
| in the US was _utterly insane_ at this point (and part of
| the reason why they died off so quickly).
|
| A few years prior they did NOT have that kind of money.
| The history of Guitar Hero is that RedOctane was involved
| in manufacturing third-party softpads for people
| importing DDR home games from Japan. They saw
| GuitarFreaks in a Japanese arcade and contracted Harmonix
| to build a game around a guitar controller. The game they
| made, Guitar Hero, was _startlingly_ low budget, with
| loads of covers[1]. Nobody had any money to license
| patents.
|
| In terms of the cost of actually keysounding a track,
| relative to Harmonix's patent workaround... I'm not
| entirely sure. It could go either way. I could imagine
| some automated/cheap way to do 'good enough' keysounding
| could have been made, especially since they're already
| charting out note data.
|
| [0] For example, I said Harmonix was involved in the ITG
| lawsuit but it was actually RedOctane who published ITG.
| I'd edit my comment but I can't find the edit link.
|
| [1] Which arguably worked in the game's favor - I do
| remember people noting that the all-masters-all-the-time
| approach of Guitar Hero World Tour made playing vocals
| feel strange.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Grew up on DDR back in the early 2000s as part of my
| workouts. Loved it immensely but when ITG came out, switched
| over immediately. I understand why Konami did what they did
| although I wished they didn't, because it killed the genre.
| ITG had better UI/UX, better tracks, better graphics, and
| equally important - better content. I was good enough that
| 10-footers like Max300 and Legend of MaxX were not cutting
| it, so when ITG came out and tracks like Vertex and Vertex^2
| had a 12 foot rating, the game was really challenging. What
| wasn't to like?
|
| Still have a version of the old StepMania running on a Mac I
| bought in like 2002, with the ITG patch and probably 500+
| songs. I bust that out from time to time. Still great fun.
|
| Honestly I miss that whole scene, my local arcade had 10 or
| so guys that were really good and the online community was
| great too. Wish rhythm games made a comeback.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I would highly recommend checking out Zenius-i-vanisher's
| arcade search[0], you might have a local operator with
| something worth playing. Even if it's _just_ StepManiaX.
| Actually, SMX is pretty cool on its own, I shouldn 't talk
| about it like it's the red-headed stepchild of dance games.
|
| Speaking of UI/UX... that's actually the reason why I
| prefer Pump It Up to DDR right now. DDR A has this
| _extremely irritating_ menu noise. If I want to switch from
| level 7 to 8, I have to BZZ-BZZ-BZZ-BZZ-BZZT up, close the
| level 7 folder, open the level 8 folder, BZZ-BZZ-BZZ-BZZ-
| BZZT down through the song list, etc. Pump 's UI noises are
| far more tolerable, you can pick songs from the dance pad,
| and you can quickly get in and out of different level
| folders. StepManiaX actually takes this one step further
| and just _makes the monitor a touch screen_ so you can
| swipe through songs.
|
| DDR actually rebalanced their level curve a while back, so
| MAX 300 is now a level 15 instead of a 10-footer, and the
| scale goes up to 20. So there's harder stuff now, but top-
| level players still want stuff harder than that, and
| complain that DDR isn't giving it to them. I don't know
| about SMX but Pump has some pretty insane high-level
| charts[1] that I will probably never be good enough to
| clear.
|
| [0] https://zenius-i-vanisher.com/v5.2/arcades.php
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ8DPAD2zCs
| x0x0 wrote:
| Hey, this was a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it.
| zkldi wrote:
| fun addendum: StepmaniaX doesn't have _note receptors_
| because konami 's patents for DDR are so broad that the idea
| of notes scrolling towards a visible note outline is
| something they can sue you for.
|
| I believe that patent has expired now at this point, but it's
| the reason StepmaniaX doesn't have receptors.
|
| Similarly this is the reason games like Guitar Hero/Rock
| Band/ITG have hallway style viewports instead of straight
| lines. It was to mitigate the patents on having things scroll
| towards receptors in a straight line.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| > 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.
| naillo wrote:
| 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.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| No game mechanic in Minecraft, Dark Souls, Baldur's Gate 3,
| etc is new. Their success comes from a well-executed mix of
| known features. Trying to create a game with a new mechanic
| is like writing a story with an unknown plot device:
| theoretically possible but quite difficult and the result
| likely won't be any better in terms of quality.
|
| Try and name just one game released in the last decade with a
| completely novel game mechanic.
| voz_ wrote:
| Well written.
| justinclift wrote:
| "flOw" certainly seemed novel (and really nice) when it was
| released back in 2006 (not the last decade, obviously):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTVDSOnPLns
|
| It's a pity nothing else since seems to use the same
| mechanic / concept.
| concordDance wrote:
| A game consists of many mechanics combined. A great game
| needs all of them to work and licensing deals have very high
| transaction costs. You also have game mechanics that only
| work in the presence of other game mechanics, so patenting
| these can actually _decrease_ novel game mechanics.
| insanitybit wrote:
| One of the techniques when you file a patent is to come up
| with as many variations of an idea as possible. You don't
| even need to have built those ideas into an implementation.
| So maybe I say "This patent is for playing a sound right when
| a button is pressed" but I expand it to "and right before and
| right after, based on some cadence, or a configuration", etc
| etc etc. This makes patents both precise and very broad,
| leaving little room for someone to go "ah but I did it
| differently".
| edgyquant wrote:
| Couldn't this be fixed by requiring an implementation to
| patent?
| insanitybit wrote:
| I think that would have its own issues, such as creating
| a significant burden on both the person filing (who the
| system is designed to protect) as well as the patent
| office having to verify the implementation. I think it
| would be very complex.
|
| Really, patents should just expire after 5 years by
| default, possibly with exceptional grants for 10 years. I
| think 5-10 years is _plenty_ of time to establish
| yourself in a market, and if at that point your
| competitors start competing, well, you had your grace
| period.
| PeterisP wrote:
| No, because one of the traditional use-cases why patents
| were made is so that an inventor of a novel solution can
| get investment to get that invention actually implemented
| without risking that the investors will just steal the
| invention; or that the inventor can contract a
| manufacturing company to make the prototype without
| risking that they will just include the invention in
| their own products.
|
| So being able to secure a patent before its first
| implementation is made is pretty much a non-negotiable
| requirement.
| brightlancer wrote:
| Patents are often not directly exploited by the holder;
| instead, the holder sits and waits decfor someone else to
| build a working tool, then sues.
|
| So, yes, folks should be able to secure a parent before
| they're able to build and sell a working product, _but_
| it should be a requirement that they build and sell
| within a shorter time-frame than the length of the
| patent, e.g. the patent is for X years and I have to
| build and sell within 0.2*X years or the patent is
| rejected.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| It could also be fixed by making the penalty for filing
| an invalid patent prohibitively high. If someone proves
| prior art, you have to pay them "a mountain of cash".
| That way, there's A) a real risk in making your patent
| any broader than it needs to be and B) an incentive for
| law firms specialize in killing patents for the reward
| payout.
| insanitybit wrote:
| That's going to make it way easier for large companies
| who can afford a team of lawyers to hunt through
| potential infringements (and defend them). The cost of
| filing a patent is already really high (1000s, 10s of
| thosands) even without that.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own"
| ideas, so nobody else can compete.
|
| No, it's to own _your invention_ so someone else (with more
| money) can't mass-produce your invention while you're only
| able to produce and sell in Peoria.
|
| Are many patents rubbish in one form or another? Yes. Are
| some patents nothing more than an "idea" without an
| invention? Yes.
|
| Does that mean all patents are just an "idea"? NO.
|
| Invention != Idea.
|
| > Patents in general are a mistake IMHO.
|
| We can and should improve the patent system by shortening the
| term lengths, denying "obvious" patents, limiting the ability
| of someone to patent an invention that they never exploit
| (i.e. build and sell).
|
| None of that means we should toss out patents entirely.
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| It's also a "prisoner's dilemma" that involves playing
| against every other company on the planet.
|
| If you don't patent an idea that you use somebody else will
| and they will extract rent from you.
|
| So you must "defect" by paying lawyers to search through
| every product you make looking for ideas you've used that
| don't have a patent.
|
| You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to patent ideas.
|
| You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to inform people they've
| violated your patent, because somebody else who uses the idea
| may also be granted a patent and now you have to go to court
| or settle.
|
| The result is a flood of articles saying "Apple patents
| obvious idea X! What bastards!", when in fact every major
| corporation has no sane option to avoid that behavior.
| loupol wrote:
| The dynamics at play at play are definitely similar, but
| not completely so.
|
| In the prisoner's dilemma, the highest theoretical yield
| for each prisoner is achieved by everyone "cooperating",
| but that isn't really the case here.
|
| The fixed patent fees and inadequate institutions granting
| them mean big companies are disproportionately able to rack
| up on patents and increase their yield as they "defect" and
| play the game. They could lobby to strongly restrict or
| even abolish certain types of patents but they don't have
| much of an interest to do so, since patents solidify their
| already strong position in the market.
| imtringued wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| justinclift wrote:
| > Patents exist to protect small inventors from large
| companies.
|
| That's the sticker on the front. Not what actually
| happens though.
|
| Wonder if the Patent Office could be sued for false
| advertising? "it doesn't do what you're selling it as..."
| :)
| rcxdude wrote:
| The original motivation for patents was for people to
| publish their methods so they didn't get monopolised
| indefinitely or lost. Any bias towards larger or smaller
| inventors was incidental (and I would say patents work
| far more against smaller players than for them: if you're
| a new entry to the market with a new patented innovation,
| what's your option to actually make anything with that
| patent considering all the incumbents have plenty that
| you probably need to compete at all?)
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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
| insanitybit wrote:
| 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.
| coldpie wrote:
| > 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.
|
| It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation
| gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty
| bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the
| patent system. It's not a good bargain.
| insanitybit wrote:
| > It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation
| gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty
| bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the
| patent system. It's not a good bargain.
|
| I don't think anyone would really argue otherwise,
| certainly I would not. I'm just advocating for reform
| because I think the idea is really valuable.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| That didn't really worked well _at all_ for the Wright
| brothers, did it?
| insanitybit wrote:
| No one is claiming it works well.
| kderbyma wrote:
| Patents are terrible. They don't provide any real protection
| since you still have to litigate and they don't provide
| innovation. They are greed tools for evil people to use to
| stop other people from using a part of our rights.
| sooheon wrote:
| Great link. Another classic on patents as rent-seeking:
| 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.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Why haven't we got "story patents" yet?
|
| Next great investment opportunity: Raise money to get the laws
| changed / bribe some judges into deciding that broad storylines
| _can_ be patented, then patent "boy meets girl" etc, and start
| extorting Hollywood for chunks of their revenue stream.
|
| Probably best to sell the idea to those big "IP conglomeration"
| first; they'd invest early in exchange for a share of the
| extorted revenue stream later, I'm sure. Fits right into their
| business model.
| mrbungie wrote:
| Time to go read all tropes in TVTropes and become a trope
| patent troll.
| RichEO wrote:
| We have this already and it's called copyright.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Nah, that's far too limited and specific. Patents have been
| extended in scope somehow to cover things like "business
| models" and algorithms, far more abstract things. Copyright
| keeps being held to specific sequences of tokens and much
| more concrete things.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The problem there is that it's incredibily difficult to prove
| copyright violation / plagiarism; a recent example, there's a
| Tetris film on Apple TV and the author of a book is suing
| because they believe it lifted their story after he sent a
| pre-production copy to the company currently owning the
| Tetris brand:
| https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/aug/09/the-tetris-
| eff...
| izacus wrote:
| I dunno, with DMCA and backdoors to YouTube, I don't see
| megapublishers having any problems taking down content via
| IP laws.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Right, but we don't want to just "take it down"; we want
| to extract rent from the efforts of others by legal
| means.
|
| To move into the music industry, we might patent the idea
| of "notes" and thereby gain royalties on all extant
| music... certainly any _future_ music, what with "prior
| art" and all...
|
| But arranging tones in families by resonances and using
| that system to make a written representation of tones for
| the purposes of later independent reproduction of the
| sequence of sound? That's a patent-able idea, at least as
| much as "Method and arrangement for data compression
| according to the LZ77 algorithm"
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Copyright generally doesn't cover broad plot structure or
| tropes, especially components that are considered
| characteristic of a genre ( _scenes a faire_ ). Where it gets
| tricky is deciding when a particular _arrangement_ of plot
| points and tropes is close enough to be infringing. The lines
| between rip-off, homage, parody, subversion, and (sub)genre
| (re)invention aren 't especially bright or sharp. As with
| many other things, how much you can get away with seems to
| heavily depend on industry influence/standing. I don't think
| too many people other than Mel Brooks could have made
| _Spaceballs_ happen, for example.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-16 23:02 UTC)