[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Tim Conkling]

"Isn't it better that we have people focused on making
things that no one has seen before, instead of focused on how to reproduce
the last thing that was a hit so they can cash in for a quick buck?"

No. Iteration and refinement are necessary and important as well. Every once
in a while, we see a game that "no one else has seen before" and a new genre
is born. But the world would be a far poorer place if id was the only
company allowed to make a first-person shooter, just as it would be a poorer
place if the only stories involving love and loss came from Shakespeare.

This isn't meant to be a cheap shot -- honest! -- but how do you reconcile
your proposal of "you're going to need to make something new if you want to
make a game" with a game like Seaward Ho (a game I found on your website)? I
haven't played it, so I don't know for sure, but it appears to be expanding
on ideas put forth in earlier games like Pirates! and Elite. (And there's
nothing wrong with that!)

Game designers -- like authors, musicians, painters, filmmakers -- stand on
the shoulders of giants. Artists who make lasting contributions to culture
don't do so by jealously protecting their great ideas, and they don't do so
in isolation. Great creations will always spawn cheap imitations, and
ham-handed use of the (broken) US patent system won't change that.

On 2/14/07, Tom Hubina <tomh at mofactor.com> wrote:

>

> Here's the deal ...

>

> If id Software had wanted to croak everyone and not let anyone else make a

> new FPS, then that's their right. They INVENTED it!!!

>

> Honestly, I'm glad games like Duke 3D and Unreal Tournament were made but

> as

> someone who is trying hard to come up with original game play designs I

> don't like the idea that people can take what I've spent a ton of time and

> energy developing and slap some different graphics on it and release it on

> portals where it competes with my titles. What I really care about is the

> ability for the person who invents something to be able to say how that

> invention can be exploited by others. In id's case, they were licensing

> their technology and they were better at making that tech than anyone else

> for a very long time. They were smart enough to know that licensing that

> tech was worth more money that preventing people from making competing

> products.

>

> In casual, there isn't any tech to speak of. It's 100% game play, and it

> gets ripped off constantly without any improvements or changes. The

> relatively low cost to create titles means that it's MUCH worse in casual

> than in the days of the FPS.

>

> My question is, would we have gotten to Half-Life and Counterstrike

> earlier

> if people weren't so busy ripping off Doom / Quake / etc? Necessity is the

> mother of invention, and if just doing a copy isn't enough you have to

> look

> for something "more".

>

> And how about this as a follow up question: If you can't make a copy of

> what

> someone else has done, you're going to need to make something new if you

> want to make a game. Isn't it better that we have people focused on making

> things that no one has seen before, instead of focused on how to reproduce

> the last thing that was a hit so they can cash in for a quick buck?

>

> How about if publishers couldn't fund that kind of stuff (unless they want

> to pay for a license), and instead the only thing they could put their

> money

> into was original/innovative content? How many great ideas that never got

> the chance to be made would suddenly find it possible to get funding?

>

> Tom

> (this is mostly a theoretical debate as it's based on the premise that we

> have a revised patent structure for gaming content)

>

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org

> > [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Lennard Feddersen

> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:12 AM

> > To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List

> > Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents

> >

> > I don't agree with your last sentence Adam.  We got from Wolf

> > 3d to Unreal Tournament - IMHO pretty clearly a good thing as

> > far as FPS players are concerned - because id software did

> > not (in fact, quite likely Carmack created some of his

> > competitors with his amazing code release policy) stop future

> > innovation and enhancement upon which consumers got more and

> > better products that they seemed happy to purchase.  Many

> > people were employed and new and strong companies were built.

> >

> > IMHO this is the strength of capitalism - somebody makes

> > something that sticks so many people dive in and figure out

> > how to make a better mouse trap.  The very powerful computers

> > we are now all enjoying came about because of this very

> > marketplace mechanic - if early developers had been given

> > technology patents that were too broad then we most surely

> > would not be where we are today.

> >

> > Lennard Feddersen

> > CEO, Rusty Axe Games, Inc.

> > www.RustyAxe.com

> >

> > Lennard at RustyAxe.com

> > P. 250-635-7623 F. 1-309-422-2466

> > P. July & August 518-863-2317

> > 5014 Walsh, Terrace, BC, Canada, V8G-4H2

> >

> >

> >

> > Adam Martin wrote:

> > > On 14/02/07, Tom Hubina <tomh at mofactor.com> wrote:

> > >

> > >> We _should_ be able to patent UNIQUE game play. We

> > _should_ be able

> > >> to leverage some form of legal protection to stem the tide

> > of rampant

> > >> copycats that is absolutely destroying the casual games

> > industry (buy

> > >> me a drink at GDC and I'll talk your ear off about this topic).

> > >> However, the current

> > >>

> > >

> > > I'll bite. Where/when can I find you? :)

> > >

> > > I'll wager that the much faster and more appropriate

> > solution to the

> > > copycat problem is for the retail market to improve. My turn at a

> > > provocative statement until GDC: claiming that the ease of cloning

> > > games is destroying the casual games industry is like claiming that

> > > the second-hand games market is destroying the mainstream games

> > > industry - both are merely the customers showing that the

> > industry has

> > > fundamentally misunderstood what their market actually

> > wants, or has

> > > fundamentally failed to satisfy the needs effectively.

> > >

> > > Adam

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > Casual_Games mailing list

> > > Casual_Games at igda.org

> > > http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> > > Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> > > Archive Search:

> > >

> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> > > List FAQ:

> > >

> > http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Games_List_

> > > FAQ

> > >

> > >

> > _______________________________________________

> > Casual_Games mailing list

> > Casual_Games at igda.org

> > http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> > Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> > Archive Search:

> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> > List FAQ:

> > http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Gam

> > es_List_FAQ

> >

>

> _______________________________________________

> Casual_Games mailing list

> Casual_Games at igda.org

> http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe

> Archive Search:

> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> List FAQ:

> http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Games_List_FAQ

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20070214/6626ef9a/attachment.html