View Full Version : Microsoft Patents Drop-in/out in Co-Op Shooters
modeps
07-21-2009, 06:25 AM
Back in 2002 when Microsoft Studios published Brute Force, it looks as though they also filed for a patent. This little patent application would make Microsoft the owners of Drop-in/Drop-Out style co-op, where you can join and leave games on the fly. The specifics say that this is in relation to a "squad-based shooter," but we all know how that can be twisted around to mean whatever you want.
Anywho, looks like recently they were granted this patent. Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5318881/microsoft-patents-drop+in-co+op-in-shooters):
A squad-based shooter video game allows players to dynamically join and leave the game, while that game is in progress, without the players having to save and restart the game. When a new player joins an in-progress game, a new squad member is allocated to the new player and the screen is split to present a viewing panel for the new player that depicts scenes from the perspective of the new squad member. When an existing player leaves the game, the screen is unsplit to remove the viewing panel for the exiting player and that player's squad member becomes part of the squad being controlled by the remaining player(s).
What other drop-in/drop-out style shooters (that MS hasn't put out) are there anyway?
JasonSuave
07-21-2009, 06:48 AM
If they filed for patent, they damn well better be putting drop in/out coop into all of their shooter games going forward!
This is just a split screen 3D variation of every arcade game of my youth.
I applaud MS for getting this patent. Now they won't have to worry about some Joe from Nowheresville coming out of the blue to claim some money like they, Nintendo and Sony have been dealing with. Also it seems that most of the comments on that article come from people who didn't read the patent and just needed a reason to bash MS again. If it were Nintendo they would be gods. But it's MS so the devil has raised it's head again.
Gel214th
07-21-2009, 08:26 AM
Absolutely terrible. This is why Patents don't belong in software.
Think of the restrictions and lack of innovation in other titles that will be the result of this patent filing.
It really sucks. :(
MightyDog
07-21-2009, 08:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDi_7swlKo
Gel214th
07-21-2009, 08:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyDi_7swlKo
All well and good to claim prior work.
BUt how many developers have the millions required to challenge this in court? How many publishers will be willing to do so?
Most probably NONE.
They will simply LEAVE OUT drop in/drop out Co-Op from their games instead.
Net LOSS to the Consumer.
I applaud MS for getting this patent.
That's because you are clearly an MS apologist. This is a stupid patent to grant, like EVERY other software patent I've ever seen, it serves none but he who's granted the patent, not he who innovates. I've yet to see someone give reasonable arguments for any software patent's worth, much less try to defend the balance sheet of software patents. Yet, you always seem to have someone crawl out of the woodwork to defend <insert big company here> without seemingly having a clue about what they're defending. Sad.
Yep, it's another software patent, bound to do what software patents do, and that's certainly not promoting innovation. It's in the same league as Sega's famous arrow patent. Yea, protect that, using arrows for pointing, we MUST have patents or companies just won't invest the massive research money needed to discover that arrows are good for pointing. Geesh.
That's because you are clearly an MS apologist. This is a stupid patent to grant, like EVERY other software patent I've ever seen, it serves none but he who's granted the patent, not he who innovates. I've yet to see someone give reasonable arguments for any software patent's worth, much less try to defend the balance sheet of software patents. Yet, you always seem to have someone crawl out of the woodwork to defend <insert big company here> without seemingly having a clue about what they're defending. Sad.
Yep, it's another software patent, bound to do what software patents do, and that's certainly not promoting innovation. It's in the same league as Sega's famous arrow patent. Yea, protect that, using arrows for pointing, we MUST have patents or companies just won't invest the massive research money needed to discover that arrows are good for pointing. Geesh.
Microsoft, Apple and plenty of other major companies hold seemingly silly and innovation stiffing patents, for no other reason than to protect themselves from patent squatters. The amount of backlash MS would receive from actually using such a patent against a competitor would lose them a lot more money than any patent squatter could imagine taking from them.
Microsoft, Apple and plenty of other major companies hold seemingly silly and innovation stiffing patents, for no other reason than to protect themselves from patent squatters. The amount of backlash MS would receive from actually using such a patent against a competitor would lose them a lot more money than any patent squatter could imagine taking from them.
So the logic being they're cultivating evil things only for benevolent purposes? No, I don't buy that, it's acquisition of power, plain and simple, and even if they never use it, as others have stated, it quietly dissuades anyone else from using it. Heck, even if they exercised their rights, the average gamer would likely never hear about it, even if a suit was filed. I doubt Sega got much backlash when they sued Fox, and that's likely as public as it's ever gonna get.
Even if MS sued Sony or Nintendo for patent infringement, people would draw their usual battle-lines and MS would not be hurt, technically the law would be on their side. MS has been holding patents over the heads of Linux distributors for many years, and although they'll likely never sue, it definitely allows them to shift customers and exercise power (just like a nuclear arsenal does).
In the real world, what will likely happen is that a company that implements the feature would either pay MS a licensing fee, or if they don't know about it, they get a nice letter after release. Then they either pay, or risk a suit, which nobody would want. Either way, the net result is more money for the patent holder, and less implementation of the patented feature.
I strongly disagree with the idea that these patent acquisitions are for protection purposes only. If that were true, then they'd donate them to public domain for the nice PR boost.
Jotoco
07-21-2009, 03:36 PM
If it were Nintendo they would be gods. But it's MS so the devil has raised it's head again.
I though it was quite te opposite around here.
And on the subject, I think it is bullshit. Right along the double-click patent and many others.
Someday I will make a patent for "an electronic device used to play games" or anything bland like this.
bowie
07-21-2009, 06:02 PM
What other drop-in/drop-out style shooters (that MS hasn't put out) are there anyway?
I never played Haze, aside from the demo, but I thought it had something similar. "Co-op play includes a full single player campaign in which friends can jump in and out of your game at will." --
http://www.co-optimus.com/game/72/Playstation_3/Haze.html
I don't know whether it is as seamless as the patent describes though. Perhaps someone else can comment.
What irks me about a lot of patents is that they don't seem to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Like baz said arcades did drop-in/drop-out co-op a long time ago. Split-screen, co-op and bots have all been present in shooters for a long time. To me it just seems like an obvious combination of existing ideas.
boneyardweller89
07-21-2009, 06:16 PM
Microsoft, Apple and plenty of other major companies hold seemingly silly and innovation stiffing patents, for no other reason than to protect themselves from patent squatters. The amount of backlash MS would receive from actually using such a patent against a competitor would lose them a lot more money than any patent squatter could imagine taking from them.
This is stupid. It sucks that I'm never gonna be able to have features like drop in/out co-op on my PS3. I think MS also patented custom soundtracks and universal voice chat.
I realize this is really small stuff but it's stuff like this that make the 360 a favorite among multiplayer gamers. It makes me fear that we're headed to a one-console future in video games.
Mr.Green
07-21-2009, 07:23 PM
Software patents are evil. On one hand I can understand a company wanting to protect, let's say, some clever algorithms used in facial recognition or something but fucking game features?
But since mankind hasn't globally accepted common sense yet, I can see how it would be a nightmare to draw the line.
waldo
07-21-2009, 07:33 PM
As rightly pointed out in the comments of the linked article, this is not a patent on drop in co-op. It is a patent on automatically splitting the screen upon the detection of someone plugging in an additional controller. When you see an article about a patent on something it is a 90% chance that the author read the summary and thinks that that is what the patent protects. Only the claims are enforceable. The claims are what define the protected area of the patent. So, you can save yourself some spit and vinegar by assuming the author is not giving you the whole story and reading the claims. But, that is crazy talk since no one can be bothered to read something lest it interfere with their baseless outrage.
Software patents are evil. On one hand I can understand a company wanting to protect, let's say, some clever algorithms used in facial recognition or something but fucking game features?
I could even get behind that concept, if I'd ever seen something clever enough that a patent is deserved/helpful. Software is just too easy to write, and solutions are too obvious to too many. I'm sure if the average person had as much ability to, say, develop a new drug as they did a piece of software, I'd say the same thing about medical patents, but it's just not the case.
To me it's as useful as patenting a particular plot in a piece of literature.
That's because you are clearly an MS apologist. This is a stupid patent to grant, like EVERY other software patent I've ever seen, it serves none but he who's granted the patent, not he who innovates. I've yet to see someone give reasonable arguments for any software patent's worth, much less try to defend the balance sheet of software patents. Yet, you always seem to have someone crawl out of the woodwork to defend <insert big company here> without seemingly having a clue about what they're defending. Sad.
Yep, it's another software patent, bound to do what software patents do, and that's certainly not promoting innovation. It's in the same league as Sega's famous arrow patent. Yea, protect that, using arrows for pointing, we MUST have patents or companies just won't invest the massive research money needed to discover that arrows are good for pointing. Geesh.
Nope. Not defending them. Just saying that this way they won't have to worry about some nobody or another company trying to sue them on purpose just cause they're MS. The last thing they want is to have another Immersion incident on the software side.
I think MS also patented custom soundtracks and universal voice chat.
Custom soundtracks yes. Universal voice chat MS is being sued for. Sony settled out of court.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/xbox-live-patent-infringement-trial-underway
MS also has a patent for the spectator mode that is used in alot of games.
Meusli
07-22-2009, 06:11 AM
I am in the camp that disagrees with these sort of patents, it's not as if these things could not be thought up by anyone with half a brain. To patent something so obvious is an idiot move.
Nope. Not defending them. Just saying that this way they won't have to worry about some nobody or another company trying to sue them on purpose just cause they're MS.
They wouldn't be suing 'because they're MS', they'd be suing because they got a patent, and someone worth suing implemented it. How is that worse than getting the patent for anti-competitive purposes? Large corporate self-absorbed greed is somehow superior to individual or small company self-absorbed greed (or is it just good when it's MS :))? The software patent system is what's broken, nobody deserves applause for abusing it.
You applaud MS because they act completely in their own self interest. I shudder to think what they'd have to do to earn your disdain.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.