Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hi this is Jennie Bharaj, and you're watching my web series dedicated
to news and insight in the games industry.
Online Freedom is obviously a very passionate topic for a lot of people.
But what about video game dev freedom?
A lot of gamers aren't aware of the legal restrictions surrounding
game development. A quick lesson:
Registered patents allow the owner to have exclusive rights to an idea, or a process,
or a device. And a lot of video game technologies
have patent protection. For example, the Nintendo 64 is patent protected
by Nintendo. It's also good to point that patents protection
is very common in the video game industry.
For example, Sega has more than 1000 US and European patents.
Nintendo has more than 200. Atari has more than 100.
And these are just some companies. But patent rights for video games delve into
more than just physical technology.
A lot of patents delve into gameplay mechanics, and ideas for games.
This is why game devs may feel restricted in the games they create.
Here's a quick example: For those of you unaware of ghost cars,
it's basically an apparition of a player's fastest lap
while you're racing in real time. The first ghost car was utilized in Atari's
arcade game, "Hard Drivin'." Now, Atari is famously known for its successful
patent for the 'ghost car' in racing games.
In my opinion, racing games without ghost cars
are at a huge disadvantage. Atari knew this, which is why they set a licensing
fee for game developing companies who want to include a ghost car in their game.
In fact, Re-volt, a console game released in 1999,
actually had to remove their ghost car feature, because they didn't have the license from
Atari to include it. But then, there are also cases where the courts
go against the validity of a patent. For example, in 1994,
Atari went against Sega claiming that Sega's games for the Genesis and Game Gear were infringing
on their rights for 'side-scrolling' gameplay feature.
Side-scrolling gameplay is defined as a 2D game mechanic, where the character moves through
a setting with changing backgrounds. It's very simple concept.
But Atari was claiming that Sega was making them lose dominance in the market because
Sega was stealing their gameplay mechanic. The courts stated that Sega was not responsible
for Atari's potential failure and therefore denied their claim
even though Atari's patent may have been valid! I consider that - a sick burn.
The video game industry is filled with rules and regulations about everything.
But in the beginning stages, there were a lot of stress points,
because everything was so new. But are these types of video game patent.
that directly associate themselves with game mechanics and ideas for video games
hindering video game dev freedom? Or should we just consider this as the common
norm? Let me know in the comments below.
Cheers. Keep on gaming.