With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it’s ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.
Patents should last 10 years instead of 20, and digital patents even less.
Digital patents should not exist. Period.
For trivial software features like these, definitely not. I think patents start to make sense in the area of really advanced algorithms, like SAT solvers, ML, and so on. So conditional on patents in general making sense, those kinds of patents seem legit to me.
I can see why patents are so long when you need to build like a billion dollar factory to make a product and mass produce it.
Digital concepts don’t take that much investment and once you have it you don’t need to invest in making more, it’s just there.
So yes, digital patents should be a fraction of the time that physical patents should be. Like 2 years instead of 20.
2 years seems like a nightmare for indie developers. Do you want a bunch of AI Chinese cash grabs pushing things out like Hollow Knight 2: Microtransaction Edition or Stardew Valley Romance Sims? Because without IP protection, indie developers will get creamed.
I don’t remember all of the differences, but I think you’re conflating copyright, patent, and trademark here. Software patents should almost not be a thing, but copyright and trademark should still exist.
Copyright if elements of the game such as 3D models, images and code have been copied.
Trademark if the name of the game is used (i.e. “Stardew Valley Romance Sims”).
Patents for game mechanics.
As a side note, personally I think that game mechanics shouldn’t be at all patentable
in most countries, afaik, you actually can’t patent game mechanics, for the same reason you can’t patent rule sets for boardgames:
because they are essentially just logical connections. it would be like patenting math, which is also not allowed, for very obvious reasons. (with some very specific, very niche exceptions)
japan is just plain weird and wrong about their patent system.
that’s why all of the lawsuits about this stuff are happening in japan; not just because that’s where the companies are, but because japanese copyright law is (especially) fucked.
I don’t believe those indie developers have any patents.
You don’t need a patent to protect the IP of a game. That’s what copyright is for.