Microsoft Patents Drop-In Co-Op In Shooters

[Krakn3Dfx]

Here

This kind of thing always worries me. Take a broad sweeping term, let a company patent it, closing the ability to have that functionality on another platform.

Left4Dead is a drop-in coop shooter. Right now it's only on the XBox 360 and PC. This pretty much could close the door on it ever coming to the PS3. How many other games will be affected across the board by this patent? When developers can't develop this feature in a shooter for the PS3, will the abandon the idea altogether, or will only XBox 360 owners get it?

I think this is short sighted and will hurt the industry as a whole in the long run.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Patenting a basic game design idea is incredibly obnoxious.

I want to patent "levelling up" so I can have dominion over all RPGs.

 

[brblx]

i'm gonna patent gold farming and start an empire.

 

[R Nilla]

I don't understand how such general concepts can be patented. It's simply baffling.

But, does this really mean Sony (or Nintendo, et al.) can't implement similar "technology?" Plenty of things are patented but they aren't without their clones or competitors.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: R Nilla
I don't understand how such general concepts can be patented. It's simply baffling.

But, does this really mean Sony (or Nintendo, et al.) can't implement similar "technology?" Plenty of things are patented but they aren't without their clones or competitors.

Becasuse we desperately need patent reform in this country.

That being said, patents such as those are generally un-enforceable. Meaning, MS can claim whatever they want about having the patent, but another game company will basically just say "sue us then", and MS either won't or wouldn't be awarded any damages as a result.

 

[benzylic]

nevermind, I should have read the article first.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Patenting a basic game design idea is incredibly obnoxious.

I want to patent "levelling up" so I can have dominion over all RPGs.

Most likely they patent things so other companies don't do the same and try to screw over MS.... I'll be highly surprised if they enforce this.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Patenting a basic game design idea is incredibly obnoxious.

I want to patent "levelling up" so I can have dominion over all RPGs.

Most likely they patent things so other companies don't do the same and try to screw over MS.... I'll be highly surprised if they enforce this.

Good point. MS has spent plenty of time in the courts fighting people who do nothing but file gaming related patents already.

One of the most recent cases is MS fighting two guys who made a patent back in 1991 for a way to play video games over the internet with other people. link

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Patenting a basic game design idea is incredibly obnoxious.

I want to patent "levelling up" so I can have dominion over all RPGs.

Most likely they patent things so other companies don't do the same and try to screw over MS.... I'll be highly surprised if they enforce this.

Ding ding! We have a winner!

Large companies tend to use patents as defensive tools except in the most egregious of violations on very solid patents. Patent suits are like nuclear warfare - toss one at someone, and they're going to be hitting you with everything they've got. No one wants the expense, hence the reluctance to use them offensively.

 

[swaytech]

Interesting .... thank Jebus I have a 360 I guess. I would imagine someones going to fight this.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I wonder who holds the patent to "video games".

This is a fine example of one of those ridiculous and broad patents that should have never been awarded, and it is pretty much nigh impossible to enforce.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
This is a fine example of one of those ridiculous and broad patents that should have never been awarded, and it is pretty much nigh impossible to enforce.

Maybe. Then again, I remember people gushing over how amazing and revolutionary Gears of War's drop-in co-op mode was at the time, so maybe we're just jaded.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think, to be awarded a patent, you should have to go to the patent office (or, barring that, send in a video of yourself) and perform a demonstration of the technology you're trying to patent. Then a panel of judges would decide whether you're awarded the patent or not.

The program would be paid for by the ad revenue from broadcasting it on TV.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: erwos

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
This is a fine example of one of those ridiculous and broad patents that should have never been awarded, and it is pretty much nigh impossible to enforce.

Maybe. Then again, I remember people gushing over how amazing and revolutionary Gears of War's drop-in co-op mode was at the time, so maybe we're just jaded.

So does that mean that Epic now has to pay Microsoft royalties for every copy of Gears of War 1 and 2 sold since it's a shooter that contains "drop-in co-op multiplayer"?! Will they also have to pay backdated royalties for all the copies of Gears sold before the patent was finalized?!

This is a ridiculous patent.

 

[zerocool84]

You guys have to remember though that Microsoft has tons of money and will fight people over this broad patent. Look at Apple and then patenting finger gestures that have been used in other many other smart phones for years before the iphone came out. They fight people over them. Stuff like this really pisses me off and imo holds back progress.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
So does that mean that Epic now has to pay Microsoft royalties for every copy of Gears of War 1 and 2 sold since it's a shooter that contains "drop-in co-op multiplayer"?! Will they also have to pay backdated royalties for all the copies of Gears sold before the patent was finalized?

Probably not since Microsoft published both Gears titles.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
So does that mean that Epic now has to pay Microsoft royalties for every copy of Gears of War 1 and 2 sold since it's a shooter that contains "drop-in co-op multiplayer"?! Will they also have to pay backdated royalties for all the copies of Gears sold before the patent was finalized?

Probably not since Microsoft published both Gears titles.

But technically, Microsoft COULD go after those royalties if Epic ever made them angry by oh, I don't know...making Gears multi-platform?

Stupid patent. What Microsoft developed games feature "drop-in co-op multiplayer"? Gears is Microsoft published.

 

[Thraxen]

Someone should challenge the this patent based on prior art and being obvious. I hate our patent system.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ObscureCaucasian

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Patenting a basic game design idea is incredibly obnoxious.

I want to patent "levelling up" so I can have dominion over all RPGs.

Most likely they patent things so other companies don't do the same and try to screw over MS.... I'll be highly surprised if they enforce this.

Hopefully not, but they have tried to extort licensing fees from flash card makers for the FAT32 long file name scheme patent, which also should not have been granted.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx
Left4Dead is a drop-in coop shooter. Right now it's only on the XBox 360 and PC. This pretty much could close the door on it ever coming to the PS3.

That and the fact that Valve doesn't want to work on it.

I'm also concerned as to what classifies as a "Drop-In Co-Op shooter" would the next Metal Slug game fall under this category? How about Raiden? I see no good coming from this.