[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Tom Hubina]

Kim,

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that with the Microsoft acceptance criteria and I
applaud you for it.

However, the point I was going after falls under the flowers vs pirates
example you gave. The portal is more than happy to take a game that is the
same but with flowers instead of pirates. It's a different enough game to
consumers, and that's fine because portals make more money selling 150 units
of the flowers + the pirate game than selling 100 units from just the
pirates game. At that level of scale and given the difference in themes, I
can even almost see that being justified. The icky part starts when you have
a pirate theme, a flower theme, a fruit theme, and a spaceship theme, all
for essentially the same game. Sure the portal picks up some additional
revenues from each one, but it's a diminishing return and the effects are
spread over all the developers so the guy making the pirate game loses sales
to the guy making the rest of em. Even worse, at what point do the customers
realize that there's no reason to buy the pirates game because they can just
go download the space, fruit, and flowers game and get another 3 hours of
game play - and if they go to other portals and download them they can get
even more free play.

They don't do that in droves - but can quickly figure out that they can if
they want to spend the energy. Once you know that it's out there you get to
make a choice - do I go download it again or buy it? Well, if I'm going to
download it again, I may as well download something else. Rinse repeat. It's
great for keeping people coming back to the portal, but not so great for
developers trying to make a living on conversion revenue.

An even more insidious way of looking at it - The portals make money when
the customers are at the portal looking at ads. If they buy a game and "go
dark" for a month while they play the heck out of it, the portal can't
monetize them. However, if they're downloading/playing lots of a games and
not buying things then the portal gets to show them ads which is where their
real money is. The portal's perfect scenario is if the customers have just
enough fun to keep em coming back, but not enough fun to actually buy
something!

ok - that's too paranoid - right???

Tom


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

> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org 

> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Kim Pallister

> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:55 PM

> To: casual_games at igda.org

> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents

> 

> 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

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>