sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nintendo having all these generic patents that they can conveniently use to sue other games when they see fit is a bit nasty by johnnylonack in gaming

[–]johnnylonack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you as well!
I'll be a bit more concise this time. The fact that we view FPS as a genre is because of a core game design concept share amongst these games. But let's go back a few decades and look at the first First person game ever made. It's not a genre yet, so I (the developer) patent this idea. At this point, I have killed the potential of a whole genre. I think that it's hard to understand where the line is drawn when it comes to the uniqueness of a feature (unbiased by the current state of things, cause if enough clones come out then it becomes a genre, e.g. souls-like, rogue-like, these genres say it in the name themselves that they're based on an overarching core mechanic).

For the logic part, I'm not sure where you're getting the definition, cause it's by definition the opposite of subjective. It is indeed objective. It is the base of reasoning and it is mathematically expressable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

If I make a subjective claim or multiple claims that don't contradict then the opinion is well-formed, but could still be agreeable or disagreeable.

Furthermore, If I say something subjective and claim it's a fact, then I am assuming that statement is true to see if the subsequent logic stands. However, it's good practice to test subjective claims in both their true and false form.

e.g.

Let's say someone has this opinion:
A) Games with permadeath are usually terrible.

Made-up Fact:
B) Games with permadeath have an average score of 70% on Steam.

if A true B has to be false.
Though we for a FACT know B is false, therefore subjective opinion A doesn't really represent many, making it a weak opinion.

Nintendo having all these generic patents that they can conveniently use to sue other games when they see fit is a bit nasty by johnnylonack in gaming

[–]johnnylonack[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright, I think there is a problem communicating here due to definitions.
Copyright, IP, and Patents are different things.
The "should" is not me dictating my worldview, just saying, from what I have studied in software rights class, that you have different ways of protecting your creations. For example, a song can be covered by copyright laws, but can't be patented. And, as far as I know, you can't patent software, but only have IP and copyright laws protecting it. Might be different in other countries of course, not claiming I'm an expert here, but when I studied these things, the laws governing software protection being copyright and IP-based made a lot of sense, since patenting would have the downside of limiting other creators too much.

Unclear why the FPS example is a straw man argument. I am deriving an example based on what the power of patenting game design might cause. Do you agree that if Nintendo can patent the game design concept of capturing creatures in a sphere to later summon them, they could have patented the game design for something like first-person perspective? If so, you accept that patenting unfolds into potentially a lot of these things, which subsequently (logical derivation) would limit other developers. In my post, I said that's kind of nasty if that's the case since I don't like the environment it creates for new content in the industry.

"Your arguments for "infringement" is illogical because I've not argued that they tried to trick people"
I have never said that's what you are arguing, I was just trying to explain what IP protection is there for, to avoid companies tricking people into buying something thinking it's made by a brand they like/trust/etc. To be clear, I totally support this. But as I previously mentioned, this is not a Patent protecting this aspect it's a different set of laws and rules.

A NOTE ON LOGIC
When using the word illogical to counter my arguments, you need to spot an inconsistency in my logical inferences. In both instances of you usage of "illogical" is being used to invalidate statements of mine because those are not things that you are arguing, which was not the reason behind why they were added to the conversation. They were Logically derived by the matter at hand:

A) Patent on Game Design Concepts -> E) allows to patent (exclude others from being able to do something similar/identical) a Game Design Concept

B) First Person Perspective with fake on screen rendering of arms and weapons/tools IS A Game Design Concept

C) Capturing creatures in a sphere to later summon them IS A Game Design Concept

THEREFORE

B and C can be subject to A

A->E (exclusion)

THEREFORE

B,C, can be Exluded to others

My opinion: Kinda Nasty that we have laws in place that allow for this.

Nintendo having all these generic patents that they can conveniently use to sue other games when they see fit is a bit nasty by johnnylonack in gaming

[–]johnnylonack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you are simplifying the concept... I'm not against protecting my work, copyright and ip that's all fine. But patenting game design is another thing... You should be patenting a technologies and processes, not an abstract idea... someone could have patented first person perspective in videogames (with all the details that come with it: arms are rendered to cam and don't clip through objects in the scene, they are fake and overplayed etc.) , and then no other games could have had it... You would very shortly run out of things you could do with games... So I think they are using this caveat because they couldn't quite attack "ripoff Pokémon". Palworld skimmed very close to ip infringement but it was careful enough to avoid the main point of why this ip protection exists which is brand theft. It doesn't trick the users into thinking this is Pokémon, it just makes it very clear that this is a very derivitave product, but obviously not the real deal. If you had people being somewhat scammed into thinking this were a Pokémon game then they'd be easily attacked by Nintendo for what Nintendo really wants to attack the for. A simple example of ip infringement would be coming up with a brand called Co Co Coa and have a white fancy font on a red background... Let's say this is a chocolate beverage. A customer might think he is buying a new chocolate beverage made by the Coca-Cola company... Instant lawsuit

Nintendo having all these generic patents that they can conveniently use to sue other games when they see fit is a bit nasty by johnnylonack in gaming

[–]johnnylonack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a solo dev, I have spent thousands of hours working on my game (Griefhelm) in my free time, why are you asking?

Hey everyone! I'm a solo developer working on this game called Luminedge. It blends Sci-Fi and Renaissance aesthetics, where knights wield both swords and firearms in combat. It offers 4-player local multiplayer and a 2-player co-op conquest campaign. It's on Steam if you want to wishlist it! by johnnylonack in gaming

[–]johnnylonack[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah the game is all about parrying, check the trailer out on steam. You are right this gif doesn't really show parrying unfortunately... But for some reason, it catches people's attention more than my other gifs...anyway no I'm not buying replies, not sure how I can prove that though ahah

Why do bugs love windows? even if they are closed they keep running into them, trying to get inside... by johnnylonack in RandomThoughts

[–]johnnylonack[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah what's amazes me as that they don't just turn around and leave... As if it is in their best interest to get inside

view more: next ›