[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Kim Pallister]

Adding a point to Tom's:


> the one group that could do something about copycats (the portals) have no financial incentive for doing so (they're turning to advertising to solve the financial problems they create).


Putting on my portal hat... (which I hope doesn't come with can-of-worms-opening gloves)

There is an incentive, though it's indirect, and that's in favoring the developer partners who develop original content, with the intent that a better relationship there will bear fruit down the road.

We've taken a stance on this. Granted, it's a bit of a 'soft shoe' stance, but it's something.

(from our games acceptance criteria found at: http://www.microsoftcasualgames.com/developers_resources.htm)

" 'Clone' games: Games that mimic other titles may receive additional scrutiny. We understand that most games draw upon many elements of their predecessors. That being said, MSN Games has received games that were transparently obvious copies of popular casual game titles. Since these 'clones' typically have very little new of value to add, we may opt to not accept such a title for distribution. We do this both as a service to our end customers (limiting excessive selection), and to our developer partners (rewarding those who innovate). We should emphasize that we only do this in the most egregious examples. Adding something as simple as a new twist on a proven mechanic, a different theme/treatment, or a different game mode may be enough to deem it different and thus not an outright 'clone'."

Ok, so your next question is, "have you ever turned away a title as a result of this?". Yes. Only a few, but we have done it. I'm not naming them either. Please don't ask

It's a tricky business, this. A game might be an outright copy wrt gameplay mechanic, but with "flower" treatment in place of "pirates", and hey, for some customers, that is a *different* game.

Kim Pallister
Business Development Manager
Microsoft Casual Games



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:02:26 -0800
From: "Tom Hubina" <tomh at mofactor.com>
Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
To: "'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'" <casual_games at igda.org>
Message-ID: <20070214090904.51F62AE43 at mailwash7.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

There are _many_ problems with patents when applied to software, but they're
all caused be the processes that are in place for a system that is
antiquated. The system just can't handle the fact that the industry moves
about 10x faster than it can handle. The result is a pure mess that's
horrible for everyone involved.

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
patent system is woefully inadequate for the task and the one group that
could do something about copycats (the portals) have no financial incentive
for doing so (they're turning to advertising to solve the financial problems
they create).

There's almost no value in patenting unique game play in casual. It will be
roughly 3 years before you can exercise the protection and by then 50 (100?)
or more knock offs will have been created, the companies that created them
will have gone out of business or have liquidated all tangible assets, and
the damage caused both to the patent holder and the industry in general will
have long since past the point of relevant action.

You can debate whether patents are evil or not till your blue in the face,
but given the current system it's totally irrelevant since patents are
basically ineffectual in casual games (and to a lesser extent games in
general). At best you can hope for an increased valuation by some investors,
but as Daniel James points out, they're probably not the kind of investors
you want anyway.

For my own two cents - patents aren't evil, they're just horribly broken.

Tom