Does that mean you only watch movies made 50 or more years ago since they don't provide much more of an immersive experience today? (pretty much on par with games, the newer ones have better visuals, audio, and some utilize 3D glasses). And what about books? They haven't been improved in eons?
Go back and watch some quality movies from the 70s and 80s on something fairly HD or better, many of them you may not know of (I didn't until recently), and you'll see how good they were both in audio and video.
I'm not an autistic shut in, so maybe Gray can enlighten us to the point of this thread?
If life sucks so bad, have you contemplated suicide?
don't make me want to spend $60 day one anymore.
just to spite GearBox for constantly pushing it back.
just to spite GearBox for constantly pushing it back.
I don't disagree with any of your points, it's just that 3 years from the original expected release date is a long time to delay a game :)Quotejust to spite GearBox for constantly pushing it back.
Personally I would say yay to sticking it to whats probably a 3d style game company... However, the reality of making a game is that it takes a lot of time and efforts. Would you rather they released the game filled with bugs, crashes, and various problems? Unfinished levels, unfinished sound / music...etc? And what if they ran out of funding temporarily? There are many reasons why things get pushed back... and usually, its for the better. Not just to tick off a potential customer.
the fundamental intent since 3D games have emerged has been on simulating reality.
I don't watch many new movies, because there's not much new in the stories. I'm not reading anything lately for the same reason.
Perhaps the intent was to suggest that all the next gen marketing nonsense doesn't really matter and until something amazing comes along...it will just continue to be marketing nonsense.
video game market is filled with cookie cutter garbage now
they make what sells and not awesome/fun games. take resident evil for example. those games used to be fun. re5 wasnt even a survival horror. it was more like "here are lots of guns and ammo..go kill stuff"
how did fighting games turn into crapfest like sfxtekken? it has 'pay to win' gem and 'auto block' gems. basically retarded kids online would hold forward and do whatever and abuse the auto block.
then I saw a 'silent hill multiplayer'. fail so epic its almost a win.. :dizzy:
Fantasy is fine, if there's something to it, and mostly there isn't these days.
Fantasy is fine, if there's something to it, and mostly there isn't these days.
I'm not huge on fantasy, but again, check out Jonathan Strange. It's the opposite of trite. In fact, it's written very much like a scholarly work on the history of English magic, extensive fictional footnotes and all. I'm not big on fantasy, either. Aside from Tolkien and J.K. Rowling and the one Discworld book I read, I think I've hated every fantasy book I've read. That includes the garbage Game of Thrones series (HBO treatment is pretty good, though). But Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is a masterpiece.
Plants Vs. Zombies. Great game with a SNES feel. Unlimited replayability.
Osmos. Simple concept of particles and gravity. I played it for 41 hours.
Eufloria. Incredible vectorish flower-based strategy game.
Plants Vs. Zombies. Great game with a SNES feel. Unlimited replayability.
Osmos. Simple concept of particles and gravity. I played it for 41 hours.
Eufloria. Incredible vectorish flower-based strategy game.
Plants vs. Zombie really rocks - that's a nice game. Osmos sounds interesting - I've got to try that one out for sure but Eufloria is one of my most favorite games. It is fun and I simply love strategy games. Above all I love the fact that it is based on flowers and that is so inspiring to me because for me flowers are a great inspirational source! I simply love them and right now just talking about them makes me want to get flowers delivered by serenata (http://www.serenataflowers.com).
This is some awesome spam, well done.
Is your marketing company hiring? Shoot me a PM.
I do have a personal problem with some of these so called "Indy developers". Guys that are blatantly doing nothing more than ripping off classic games and selling them to make a quick buck off of the retro fad that currently exists. Just saw a game the other day that was nothing more than a clear ripoff of castlevania.
video game market is filled with cookie cutter garbage now
they make what sells and not awesome/fun games.
Game-wise....well, that's just it, it shouldn't be a game. It should be like a dream, where you might know it's not 'real', but it's real. Actually, you can do this every night when you sleep. Oh, but you can play retro games in your dreams. Sometimes I do.
Hmm. Definitely disagree with your summary of indie development. A lot of new programmers basically re-make the games they loved when they were younger as a way to learn, but I think most of the popular retro-styled indie stuff adds a lot of new stuff or refines the gameplay for modern tastes (Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Braid, etc.) I mean, blatant copying happens way too much, even of new game concepts, but not sure if it characterizes all of indie game development. Care to mention the name of that Castlevania rip-off? Perhaps it was more of an homage?
I don't have a problem with developers adding new elements to classically inspired games. I just have a problem with guys that do nothing more than steal the IP of other, larger companies who published the same exact game 25 years earlier, changing a few pixels and pushing this garbage over steam in order to make a quick buck.
Dr. mario is one of my most favorite games. It is fun and I simply love strategy games. Above all I love the fact that it is based on Drugs and that is so inspiring to me because for me Drugs are a great inspirational source! I simply love them and right now just talking about them makes me want to get drugs delivered by serenata. (http://youtu.be/d-LKa1Y9_ok).
Hmm. Definitely disagree with your summary of indie development. A lot of new programmers basically re-make the games they loved when they were younger as a way to learn, but I think most of the popular retro-styled indie stuff adds a lot of new stuff or refines the gameplay for modern tastes (Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Braid, etc.) I mean, blatant copying happens way too much, even of new game concepts, but not sure if it characterizes all of indie game development. Care to mention the name of that Castlevania rip-off? Perhaps it was more of an homage?
Hence why I wrote this:I don't have a problem with developers adding new elements to classically inspired games. I just have a problem with guys that do nothing more than steal the IP of other, larger companies who published the same exact game 25 years earlier, changing a few pixels and pushing this garbage over steam in order to make a quick buck.
http://www.destructoid.com/creator-of-iwbtg-is-making-a-castlevania-esque-platformer-227389.phtml (http://www.destructoid.com/creator-of-iwbtg-is-making-a-castlevania-esque-platformer-227389.phtml)
The castlevania clone is just a clear example of what I'm talking about. Sure, castlevania has had its fair share of clones over the years but this is just a blatant copy. Another being retro city rampage. A classic GTA clone with clear ripoffs (they like to call them inspired references) to mario, contra, ninja turtles, back to the future, bionic commando and at least a dozen other games. Where's the originality in this? For the record, there was already a freely available classic gta clone years ago. A whole year before the same author released grand theftendo.
Ah. Where you see a rip off I see a homage or tribute. To me a rip-off is more like what gets talked about here: http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/2/22/2810409/cloning-wars-vlambeer-vs-gamenauts (http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/2/22/2810409/cloning-wars-vlambeer-vs-gamenauts), a game specifically made to syphon potential customers from the original (such as the bootleg pacman clones of yore). I think most indie games add more than you realize to the formula.
I love the Katamari Damacy(s) of the world, but sometimes games are more of an evolution or revisit than an all new idea, same as in movies, music, etc. Personally, I loved Shadow Complex on XBLA (and pretty much everyone else did too) even though it took every possible cue from Super Metriod.
Not trying to argue, but I think there is a lot more innovation in the indie realm than there has been for a long time in the game industry as a whole, thanks to accessible tools and internet distribution.
However when you go about stealing the concept physics and other dynamics from a game, change a few pixels around and sell it to a mass market, that's just theft in my eyes. They are undercutting the original authors.
Hmm. Definitely disagree with your summary of indie development. A lot of new programmers basically re-make the games they loved when they were younger as a way to learn, but I think most of the popular retro-styled indie stuff adds a lot of new stuff or refines the gameplay for modern tastes (Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Braid, etc.) I mean, blatant copying happens way too much, even of new game concepts, but not sure if it characterizes all of indie game development. Care to mention the name of that Castlevania rip-off? Perhaps it was more of an homage?
Hence why I wrote this:I don't have a problem with developers adding new elements to classically inspired games. I just have a problem with guys that do nothing more than steal the IP of other, larger companies who published the same exact game 25 years earlier, changing a few pixels and pushing this garbage over steam in order to make a quick buck.
http://www.destructoid.com/creator-of-iwbtg-is-making-a-castlevania-esque-platformer-227389.phtml (http://www.destructoid.com/creator-of-iwbtg-is-making-a-castlevania-esque-platformer-227389.phtml)
The castlevania clone is just a clear example of what I'm talking about. Sure, castlevania has had its fair share of clones over the years but this is just a blatant copy. Another being retro city rampage. A classic GTA clone with clear ripoffs (they like to call them inspired references) to mario, contra, ninja turtles, back to the future, bionic commando and at least a dozen other games. Where's the originality in this? For the record, there was already a freely available classic gta clone years ago. A whole year before the same author released grand theftendo.
Free market. They aren't ripping off code, are they?
this is where me and you are just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO, there are penty of free homebrew games that pay homage to classic games nearly all of them are free and readily available. This has been going on for years and while some companies are bothered by it, some others are flattered, as they should be. However when you go about stealing the concept physics and other dynamics from a game, change a few pixels around and sell it to a mass market, that's just theft in my eyes. They are undercutting the original authors. Not to mention there is almost no excuse to play the original games. There are tons of oldschool titles sold on compilation discs, psn, xbox live, wii channel etc.
Lets say you want to make a Marble Madness Clone... But, you realize you cant do it for free, cause you need to pay all kinds of talent to actually finish the project. Sadly, most people, when faced with the Reality of all the hard work that goes into a game, disappear quickly.
You call Midway up... And they tell you that they wont allow you to purchase the rights. They would program it themselves IF they thought the idea was good... BUT, they wont ever remake MM cause its a puzzle game, and puzzle games dont sell well.
The Classic download packs are a joke. They probably cost more to set up & run than any company ever makes on them. And worse yet, they are a rip-off... offering almost nothing extra to the person buying them, AND, having substandard controls to boot.
Corporate re-issue game packs have always been a rip off. Its only recently that emulation has improved things, merely from the fact that theres no need to reprogram a game from scratch (in most cases).
Personally, I cant see why anyone would want to make an Identical game. I always want to take what was, and Add something to the mix. Graphics are just a shell, but good gameplay is key.
As i mentioned before, there are tons of platform games over the decades that take aspects from other platform titles and so fourth. I have zero problem with that. I have a problem with some of these guys that want to make a quick buck creating an "indy" title completely based off of another franchise with zero originality whatsoever.
Can you really blame them for protecting their IP?
If you aren't talented enough to make the game then who's fault is it?
There are plenty of other ways to get the games you want.Yeah, LUCKILY not everyone has a stick up their butts, and doesnt think in pure black and white...
I admittedly have skipped most of your arguments, but I sense that perhaps y'all may be conflating various IP concepts. Game mechanics are virtually unprotectable. You can't copyright an idea, only a particular expression of an idea. An idea can be patented, but that's unrealistic. You'd have to have a separate patent for each game mechanic you wished to protect, and it'd have to be something totally unique, innovative and not obvious. Think of the most innovative game mechanics of the last 20 years. You'd never get a patent for most of them. Before Portal, I guarantee that there were other games with portals or wormholes or warp zones that transported you from one part of a level to another. The prior art would invalidate the patent.
Trademarks can last forever, but a trademark can be invalidated by disuse, so actual characters are primarily protected by copyright, but that's no problem. No reason anyone needs to appropriate someone else's characters for a game. Just make your own. I really don't think IP laws are hindering development or innovation in the videogame industry. In the tech industry and pharma industry, sure, but not videogames.
I'm not even sure where anyone keeps bringing up anything about game mechanics and copyrights
If a 5 year old 3D FPS game is being copied by an FPS that is about to be released
Umm.. All FPS games are pretty much the SAME game. They have been the same, for like +10yrs. I wish they would go away, so that good games could be made in their place.
That's just silliness. Far Cry is not Halo is not Portal is not Half Life is not Deus Ex is not Thief is not Bioshock. There's as much room for innovation in the first person perspective as there is in the 2D side-scroller.
Game-wise....well, that's just it, it shouldn't be a game. It should be like a dream, where you might know it's not 'real', but it's real. Actually, you can do this every night when you sleep. Oh, but you can play retro games in your dreams. Sometimes I do.
Sounds to me like you're less about the video games and more about the recreational narcotics. :P
Free market. They aren't ripping off code, are they?
Why is 'free market' not an equally acceptable answer to ripping off code?
If someone goes out there and copies the the unreal engine for their own game to run, that is plagarism and falls under copyright law.
Math, by the way, isn't entirely unpatentable. Google would not be the company it is today if Larry Page/Stanford didn't have a patent on his search algorithm (http://www.google.com/patents?id=cJUIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6,285,999&hl=en&ei=lfVBTpqcD8XX0QGzz-25CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA).
You couldn't just patent the concept of making a character jump onscreen because that wouldn't pass muster for a patent. Even putting aside prior art, patentable ideas must be new/innovative and non-obvious.
Umm..........The example of the guy jumping was simply an illustration. Of course it is not patentable since jumping occurs all the time in video games. I am referring to game functions that have not been concepted yet.
You are also getting basic patent principles wrong. You say that, "Since light rendering is common to game engines, it cannot be patented." That is not true. That's like saying that since directional input is common to videogames, Nintendo could not patent the directional pad on the NES gamepad. Which, of course, they did. Once again, prior art is not the reason light rendering as a concept could not be patented. Of course, prior art exists, but the courts would never even get to that question. Light rendering, as a concept, is fundamentally not patentable for more-or-less the same reasons that math by itself cannot be patented.
You're also wrong about math and software generally being unpatentable. It's a very muddy area of patent law. Specific applications of math when combined with a machine, are patentable. Patent holders for years have used the general purpose computer as the "machine" in that formula, arguing that their code alters or transforms the general purpose computer. And those patents have been issued time and time again.
. . . the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process.[Emphasis mine]
when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of 101.
In Gottschalk v. Benson we noted: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." 409 U.S., at 71 . Similarly, in Parker v. Flook we stated that "a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm." 437 U.S., at 590 . It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.[Emphasis mine]
I personally don't see a whole lot of innovation these days. 99.9% of games out there today have nothing unique, so I would say that 99.9% of games made should not be patentable. I guess my point is coming full circle back to the OP's original point then. :lol
Its not that I think copyright shouldn't exist, it is that it shouldn't exist for the duration or degree that it does.
Half a novel of debating...
It's kinda like claiming wall clocks should be presently patentable.
It's kinda like claiming wall clocks should be presently patentable.
You are still suggesting a serious flaw in your understanding of patents. Wall clocks are totally patentable. Obviously you cannot patent the abstract idea of a wall clock. But a specific implementation of a wall clock, if it's innovative and non-obvious, can be patented. This was the frequent subject of our disagreement about patenting code. You would say, "You can't patent making a guy jump or light rendering," but that's not how patents work. You can't patent those obvious or abstract ideas in the same way you can't patent wall clocks in general. But you can patent specific, innovative implementations. You can certainly patent the better wall clock. And until your patent runs out other people will have to make due building regular wall clocks, or wall clocks that are better in some other non-patent-infringing way.
In short, yes, saying that code should be subject to patent rather than copyright is very much like saying that clocks should be subject to patent rather than copyright. And in more-or-less exactly the same way.
A quartz clock is patentable. You wouldn't even know whether the clocks on the wall at Target have patented tech in them. You come up with a method of making a quartz clock more accurate, more efficient, cheaper to produce, etc., and you'll get a patent. You don't just get patent on things that are completely brand new. You can patent improvements to existing technology.
Improvements on existing methods are usually shot down in the patent evaluation process if the holder of the existing method speaks up.
Anyway, I never suggested that someone could patent code itself, or even some specific outcome, like light rendering. I said that they should/could patent a particular innovative implementation of said outcome (so long as it's novel and non-obvious and so on). Which makes perfect sense and is perfectly analogous to the clock.
I'm not talking about patenting battle systems or inventory management. I'm talking about getting a patent on the particular method you use of creating those things (your code).
Frankly, I don't think that code should be copyrightable. It should be patentable. The U.S. Patent law (35 U.S.C § 101) says that any "new or useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" can be patented. It makes far more sense to think of software code as a "new or useful process" than as an expression of creativity like music or writing.
You grant them a patent on the entire engine, and during the monopoly period people can't use the specific code from the engine. But when the patent expires, the whole thing is public domain. I'd analogize the code to a particular recipe in pharmaceuticals. Pfizer patents Viagra--in so doing they hand over the recipe to society, but nobody else can commercialize it. That doesn't stop others from accomplishing the same result with another recipe (see: Cialis). The code in the unreal engine seems to me like the chemical makeup, the recipe for Viagra.
Anyway, I never suggested that someone could patent code itself . . .
Patents on software are on the algorithms. Code itself does not get patented. A description of an algorithm, method, architecture, or process within the software is submitted for patent. If it were just the code or even a specific implementation of the code then you could circumvent a patent by rewriting the software in another language.
So what exactly at this point are you suggesting gets patented? At first it was the entire code, then it was an entire engine, then it became the code for a specific patentable feature. Now it is the innovative implementation or an outcome and I don't know if you are referring to the code or use of the concept alone. ???
Patents on software are on the algorithms. Code itself does not get patented. A description of an algorithm, method, architecture, or process within the software is submitted for patent. If it were just the code or even a specific implementation of the code then you could circumvent a patent by rewriting the software in another language.
We care what the laws are, and what they should be, because the laws apply to us when everybody is looking.
It's not even a 1 degree change in my position, let alone a reversal. My position is that code should be 100% uncopyrightable. Anything in it worth protecting should be patented. And in that case, yes, I think that Viagra makes a nice illustrative analogy. Viagra is a patented drug that causes erections. Cialis, released years later, is another drug that causes erections. There's another made by Bayer that does the same, but the name escapes me. All of these drugs do the same thing, and none of them violates each other's patents because they do it in different ways. Similarly, the Crysis engine and Unreal engine both accomplish many of the same things. If the creators of the Crysis engine believe that their method of producing whatever, ray tracing, is new and innovative, I think they should be granted a patent on it. Not a patent on ray tracing, but a patent on their method of ray tracing--sort of like Pfizer doesn't have a patent on erection production, but only a patent on their particular formula for producing erections. And yes, the code in my comparison is analogous to the recipe for Viagra. Their method is their code.
This has been my position all along. And it's a general position. I'm sure that in drafting actual software patent legislation there would be all kinds of caveats I haven't thought of that would have to be addressed. But in this discussion what I wrote above was my original position and it remains my position. Nothing's changed.
Your position may not have changed, but your explanation surely did. You previously never specified things like a "patent on their method of ray tracing" You made claims that simply stated that game makers should be able to patent the game code and cited the unreal engine as an example as something to patent. Had you pointed out clearly what you meant, then I wouldn't have been debating you.
Hence my this point this morning of you not being clear enough, and me assuming too much what you meant. From your broad statements you made in the beginning about patenting game code, it's not shocking that I thought you were talking about patenting video game code on a whole rather than a specific patentable method that may be created from within a video game engine.
Guy states he thinks video games should be patentable and acts surprised that I was pointing out why patents don't work that way.