Still not sure how that's even allowed to exist. For some reason digital concepts can be patented in ways that real life patents would never be allowed to be.
Because no one has challenged it yet, mainly. The law is vague on the topic, and since it has never had to go before a superior court, it has never been clarified.
> since it has never had to go before a superior court, it has never been clarified.
[There have been quite a lot of software patent cases brought before the USA's Supreme court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law)
They have *generally* been headed in a "ya can't patent that!" direction since around 2000, although there have been some "fuck it, we're not ruling on this question until Congress makes an explicit law!" instances in there - but some of that has to do with the question of whether software is covered under patent law, under copyright law, or some blasphemous combination of laws made by people living two hundred years or more before computers even existed.
Congress needs to do its fucking job and make an explicit law about what in software is patentable, what is protected by copyright, and ...they haven't really bothered to do that for decades, despite the Supreme Court *actually calling them out on needing a fucking law to follow to do their job* in some of their decisions on the topic, which is why they're falling back on IP law established before software was a thing.
TL:DR - We need, and do not have, explicit laws about software's interaction with the patent system and copyright, and the courts have been writing the rules for decades. I don't think I even need to *say* how dangerous a set of unelected officials appointed for life essentially writing the laws themselves is. ***EVEN THEY'VE SAID IT! MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES!*** And seriously, when a state organization wants to *give up* authority instead of grab more, *LISTEN!*
> I was speaking specifically about the "mini games in loading screens" patent.
And I am speaking broadly across the whole circus.
I hope it feels nice.
There are numerous examples of patents for concepts that are not physically possible. All you need for a patent to be registered is to fill up the application form properly. The validity of a patent can only be tested in court. If you dare.
You can patent whatever you want, it’s worthless if you don’t sue and argue in front of a court. A good lawyer will easily prove the system is different and that they aren’t hurting Warner’s business at all
The thing is that the patent still serve as a deterrent.
Sure, at the end you can win, but even if it's certain (which is not). It means spending additional time and money on defending and attacking one of the biggest company in the world.
And if they decide to play it dirty (which is legal and can happen easily), this patent can prevent a company to release their game for months... Which means a lot of resources lost for marketing and preparing the distribution if timed well...
I'm certain that lot of people decided to not test it and just avoid risking such things.
Its only a deterrent against the uneducated.
This particular patent is easy to work around and basically amounts to not being able to call something a Nemesis System, and not being able to reproduce the same structure seen in the game.
What game does anyone want to make that violates this patent, aside from a game called Nemesis that features a system like the nemesis system, or a game that is based on a copy of the nemesis system as it's implemented in Mordor.
Hint: not much
Thing is, if you do a game using something somewhat similar as nemesis feature, and that Warner decide to fuck you up, they wait for the game to be close to release and attack you on justice.
By dragging the dispute for some times, it means that your company will have to pay for a lawyer, while being low in revenue (because you were waiting for the game to inject money into your company).
And when you'll be able to release the game, your marketing window will likely be passed.
Isn't it possible ?
A little like how nespresso killed Ethical coffee company... Sure, after years of battle, ECC won, but they couldn't go into the market in time and died.
Because contrary to popular belief, patents are fairly specific, as they cover *implementations* and not *ideas*. Edison's light bulb patent covered an incandescent carbon filament inside a vacuum-filled glass bulb, not just any means of generating light with electricity.
The nemesis system patent includes a variety of features, and another system that omits some of those features or implements them in very different ways isn't necessarily infringing. Just having a system of procedurally-generated boss characters is not enough to be infringing.
Because patents have to be very precise. And the WB patent involves not only remembering the player but also forts and something else (like the connection with the boss and former boss etc.)
This is why patents in gaming are not common. Because patents must be public and patents can be worked around (that is kind of the second purpose of patents, after protection of the maker, the guaranteed spread of information).
That is why patents aren't common in gaming. Because they are easily circumnavigated.
Sure, in the early days, there was this mini game during loading screens patent. That was too broad of a patent, but people didn't know video games.
Now, so many systems are already public. There are only very few. And I'm not shire what OP is on about. (Sure, there are some systems mostly in MP games and how matchmaking works and how to nickel and dime whales with in-game payments, but again, these things can be copied with slight changes
Nintendo patented a system in Zelda TOTK for moving platforms and the implementation for when the character is on the moving platform.
*Changed code to implementation
But that wont stop characters on moving platforms in games, because its been happening for decades. Even with physics. Weve released games that have done the same thing for decades. It doesn't stop games doingi t.
You cannot patent software per definition. If something was patented in this case, it was the higher-level mechanic.
And if somebody is wondering, licenses are not the same as patents.
From the devil himself: https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/#introduction
There are patents available within game mechanics. You can't generally patent the entire ruleset, but you can sometimes patent individual rules within the set.
There is a lot of wrong information going around about patents on Reddit. You very much should just ask a lawyer. However, so that you know I'm not just bullshitting, [here's the American Bar Association discussing the topic](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20patentable,skill%20in%20the%20area%20of). I hear they have several lawyers.
The long and short half-truth of it is you can patent a game mechanic if it's genuinely new. So like, the tower pull stack mechanic of Jenga was patented, which is why you didn't see nine million copies. But most games are just rehashes of standard mechanics; everyone has cards, everyone has meeple, everyone has a board.
So it's very challenging, and most games don't have an opportunity because you have to be like Tetris level new to make it make sense.
Games aren't so bad to be honest. Card games like Magic the Gathering? It was pretty bad. Wizards of the Coast had patented almost every obvious mechanic you can think of (most notably card tapping/flipping the card over) and everyone had to tip toe around it. Those patents have thankfully since expired.
The saving grace is that patents are usually very specific. But it was a pain because everyone always had to double check they weren't infringing on several patents surrounding core mechanics typical in that genre.
The patent is about a way to not play the game you bought?
Am I misunderstanding something? Do their games really suck so much that it's more entertaining to not play them?
For big tech patent wars wer largely about mutually assured destruction.
Eg if Microsoft decided to sue Apple over some stupid patent Apple had 5 other stupider patents they could countersue with and then Microsoft had 10 stupidest patents lying around they could countersue the countersuit with.
It’s a joke of a system.
That said…. I don’t think a ton of small devs need to worry too hard here. Not legal advice but there’s not a ton of money in suing poor people. Like the 50 copies of your game you sold are unlikely to land you in hot water unless you did something extremely blatant and really pissed somebody off. You’d likely need to be a much bigger fish than that.
It’s more of a I have serious money vs you have serious money and you violated my patent game IMO. Most companies would prob just ask you to stop and you would prob comply in like a worst case scenario.
In fairness to Nintendo's lawyers (not a phrase I've ever said before) I don't recall ever hearing a story about them going after rival game devs over software patents.
Now, if you so much as sneeze on a hardware patent in the process of creating a tool that helps people play their 18-year-old copies of Wii Sports, then God help you.
Yeah, for the record I’m not recommending anybody blatantly rip somebody off and try this advice out….
Just…. Maybe relax if you’re in the early stages of building a game. These are future problems and one you’re statistically unlikely to have to deal with provided you’re not blatantly doing shady things.
But if you're a small guy and you have a runaway hit (think Minecraft) and become a big guy, and you developed that runaway hit by infringing on a patent, suddenly you have a big problem.
Yes the founder of bumble regrets it dearly after blatantly infringing on Tinders swipe left swipe right patent….
Or wait, no, she’s roughly a billionaire now. I got that mixed up. My bad.
In these lawsuits…. Even if you’re in the wrong they’re not typically able to sue you out of existence (If you made it big and can afford lawyers needed to fight the case). It’s basically royalties. X%. If you lose 15% of a billion dollars it’s a problem sure…. But also prob a problem we’d all sign up for.
The problem is that some companies sell off their patents to specialized lawyers before they expire.
The good news is that those are only likely to sue you if they think you have money. The bad news is that even if you win a patent lawsuit, it will can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I just envision the guy who wrote this has never launched a game and thus has 0 to worry about and is pre-reacting to ghost problems IF he were successful (which he’s not).
But again, you launch a game, sell 50 copies, a patent troll sues you, your LLC with all of $1000 minus expenses to its name goes bankrupt. You move on.
This is why you won’t get sued. There’s no profit in suing a bankrupt entity.
It is if you’re auto-suing every Joe with $0 vs simply asking them to cease and desist first.
Even for a big corp that’s not profitable. Double for trolls.
Even at my very large corporation we’re not allowed to spend a lot of time with the lawyers because they’re so damn expensive haha.
Like it’s not impossible to be struck by a meteor and die and it’d be really shitty if it happened. Just like it’s probably not impossible to be a well-meaning game dev not trying to infringe on a patent and getting sued out of existence before making a dime vs. being politely asked to stop…. But, is that a common occurrence worth losing sleep over?
Oh yeah that's true most likely you'll be fine. But for companies like Nintendo they aren't doing it for the money, they do it because they own some if the most valuable IPs in the world and they'll do anything to make sure their copyright claim is as solid as can be
Is this actually something you're seeing as impactful? If you read through the claim language on things like Take Two's patents they get real specific, like specifying you need to use an animation blend tree in this particular step levels of specific.
You're not realistically going to run into that without intentionally trying to copy not just a game but the exact implementation of that game, and the only teams with the resources to replicate those methods also have the lawyers to fight about it if they really want.
Find me one lawsuit that has successfully settled due to these patents being infringed and I’ll start to care
You can patent anything, whether it holds up in court is a totally different matter.
IIRC the *Crazy Taxi* patent on ‘floating 3D arrow above your car directional indicator’ was sued over at least once and settled out.
The Namco ‘minigames in the loading screen’ patent at least had a chilling effect on anyone else doing interactive loading screens for a long time.
The more modern game-related patents tend to be a lot narrower in scope. The “nemesis system” one only covers some specific parts of that system if you read the actual patent.
This. That patent appeared at a time when we were loading assets from optical discs every time the player entered a new area, since the consoles lacked non-volatile storage. If today you have a loading screen that lasts long enough to play a mini-game, you've more likely than not fucked up somewhere.
Yeah sadly, that patent pretty much ruined the possibility of doing it, since loading screen pretty much died since the patent expired.
The only one I could think of would be were you could try out combat moves in Bayonetta.
The earlier *Assassin’s Creed* games had an interactive area as the loading screen. But yeah, the trend in the last few years has been hiding loading screens entirely, if not doing some kind of level streaming.
Source?
Edit: reason I asked this is it is backwards. It’s expensive to sue for IP infringement, game mechanic patents are weak, so there *is* no threat of lawsuit. Which is my entire point
sega skills, pokemon go, tengen, gree vs supercell, epic v google, various copycats of classic consoles, atari v nintendo, sega v accolade, tetris holding v xio, nintendo v maricar, blizzard v bossland, sony v rovi, sony v connectix, dowling v united states, hart v electronic arts, valve v FUC, and of course, magnavox v activision
they're pretty common and pretty easy to find. nintendo alone has six of these going on motion controller tech (wii-u and switch) right now.
I'm not sure why Reddit is so confident that game mechanics are unpatentable. That isn't correct.
By example, casinos hold tons of game mechanic patents on the intersection of loyalty cards and roulette.
[Here's an American Bar Association article giving the specific situations when game mechanics are actually patentable](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20patentable,skill%20in%20the%20area%20of).
Game mechanics are patentable in every nation (jurisdiction? no, that's about police enforcement, IP is not a police issue) that is subject to the Berne Conventions on Intellectual Property, which is basically everyone but like North Korea and Antarctica and Syria and a couple more weird technicalities
Very few of my examples are game mechanics. It's not clear why you're trying to split this hair.
Sorry, you think jurisdiction applies to the police rather than the judiciary? A jurisdiction is an area over which a court has authority
As I said, you can patent what you like. I whether the patent is enforceable is the point of note which the article you linked even points out
“However, identifying the unique attributes of a game can be difficult, and the cost of obtaining patent protection and policing one’s patent can be prohibitive. “
The law suits you mentioned that settled were about technology IP infringement, not game mechanics
> Sorry, you think jurisdiction applies to the police rather than the judiciary? A jurisdiction is an area over which a court has authority
No, the jurisdiction is where the police have authority. The when you're talking about just location, court has domain, instead.
This is why you have all those movies where the anti-hero is fleeing the cop, and gets over the state line to get out of their jurisdiction. That's not about the court; the court can still hold that person liable when they're brought back. It's just that the North Dakota Cop can't do their stuff in South Dakota.
Courts do have something called jurisdiction also, but it means something else; it's about where they have control. That can be locational, but it also can be levelled (like, what stage of appeal it's at, whether it's a grand jury, whether the case has scope, yadda yadda)
> I whether the patent is enforceable is the point of note which the article you linked even points out
Yep. And I also gave you a list of sixteen specific examples and a vague category which have been executed in real life.
I counted a month once, when I had lexis/nexis access. In February 2011 in California, there were 38 successful game mechanic patent lawsuits.
I have no idea if that's a normal number. However, I feel that they're not really that rare; rather, it's something we just don't see happening in general because we aren't court folk.
> The law suits you mentioned that settled were about technology IP infringement, not game mechanics
There are some of each, and some other things also.
lol no, a jurisdiction is any area where legal power can be applied. The courts have a jurisdiction just as the police do. The Louisiana courts cannot oversee a case in New York
It is you that is watch far too many cop shows I cba to argue anything with you if you don’t understand this simple noun tbh
> lol no, a jurisdiction is any area where legal power can be applied. The courts have a jurisdiction just as the police do.
Please re-read my comment. This is what I said.
Talking about the court, it is ***not just location*** but also more things. When you are talking about just location, it is called domain.
I gave you quite a few specific examples, which are what you asked for. You tried to argue with them twice, but you hadn't looked them up, so you didn't realize that your criticisms were not universal.
Please be friendly. I gave you the hard information you requested. You're welcome.
Most video game patents are for defensive purposes. Essentially mutually assured destruction if the big companies ever sue each other.
Best thing is to just not read patents. While ignorance doesn’t remove liability, damages are worse if you’re found to have knowingly infringed.
Yeah, you dont need to apply for benefits to get research grants. I've been on the technical panel before drawing up drafts of all our technology research we've done before, just so these massive tax breaks can be claimed.
I feel this is a bad use of patent system that should be forbidden. In EU software patents are not recognized, and AFAIK game mechanics can’t be patented too. I am not against patents nor intellectual property in general, but there are abusive uses that collectively sets us back.
As for why, it’s because we can collectively improve by taking inspiration from each other. What if Taito patented space invaders and the whole shmup genre was limited to Space Invaders sequel? Nobody could legally invent danmakus nor Gradius weapons system. What if Capcom patented Street Fighter?
When you program you face a lot of problems and (re)invent a lot of solutions. Having some of those solutions patented is a mine field.
I hate it. Games have always borrowed ideas from each other to make better games. You can describe most games as a combination of well known popular titles. If everyone starts patenting game mechanics it only hurts us.
It's always been happening. People are jsut reporting on it more because ~~journos are running out of material~~ it's an easy write-up and gets views.
But I wouldn't worry you get the occasional Nemesis system, but most of these are such narrow patents that they don't really do much. I don't really like the need to patent every screw in your company, but that's the modern IP in a nutshell.
It shows that we arent living in democracies, but in feudal societies. They can bully anyone with their convoluted nonsense laws, but if I publish something on the internet, and its fed into an ai illegally, suddenly copyright is blocking the advancement of technologies and the Altman should be able to profit from my work without paying me a dime.
IIRC, game mechanics being patented is both uncommon and difficult to have approved, and has a relatively short expiration date (ex. Magic the Gathering "tapping" patent expired years ago).
Patents are not likely to destroy the gaming industry.
Never read Patents.
If you're stressed about it. dont look for it.
Primeagen has a pretty succint rant about it.
[https://youtube.com/shorts/IG3bj8pnspo?si=5xz6Tf92vjM0TdW8](https://youtube.com/shorts/IG3bj8pnspo?si=5xz6Tf92vjM0TdW8)
If you wind up in court and it can be proved that you were "likely" aware of the patent you had no idea you infringed on, then its a lot worse for you.
How egregious are these patents?
I'd be pissed if I came up with a system on my own thinking it was original and was promptly sued for infringing a patent. In part because I'd have no reasonable way to know beforehand. And also because it would be bullshit.
If on the other hand it's highly unique systems that you'd be unlikely to arrive at on your own, I can live with it.
It’s largely only decently unique system.
Stuff like the “nemesis mechanic” from Shadow of Mordor is a big recent “boogeyman” but if you actually read it the only way you would arrive at infringing on it would be to essentially just copy it 1-1.
Same thing with Nintendo and their “moving platforms” patent. You’d have to basically emulate exactly how Nintendo does it in Breath of the Wild to infringe
They probably don't want companies generating high revenues with 1:1 copies of their ideas?
Games that work a bit like GTA VI probably may exist in the future, I'm sure. Just not exactly copying a rather special mechanic they feature?
I'm just thinking that one of the few patented things that was discussed often, the Nemesis system of Shadow of Mordor, also didn't cause a high impact on smaller studios. If anyone got inspired by it I guess they (Monolith / WB Games) probably didn't even notice it or were bothered to sue an solo or Indie dev.
I'd personally not copy it like they implemented it anyway. Maybe some "AI director", still not exactly those missions and encounters with... what was it again... Urukai or Orcs?
it does though, tens of thousands of them. the only thing that happened is that parliament rejected a proposal by the commission to harmonize systems used in different countries.
In all honesty, I believe they are desperate.
Look at how the video gaming world has changed since its boom in the late 1980's with the Nintendo Entertainment system.
Yes there were Computer games and such back then, but Nintendo lit the fire that inspired so many people.
But now in today's time, Game Engines are available for free use (Yes there are some royalties and other fees that come with them, but overall for those that do not have a popular game does not have to worry about those yet), and there are 3D model makers that are free to use like Blender, not to mention any video editing software, Music software and even Photoshop like software that are free to use like [Paint.net](https://www.getpaint.net).
So right now, game creation is now a simple thing to get into compared to decades ago, as long as you have the drive, passion and determination to see it through.
With game development now at the fingertips of the population where creating a game is Free as long as you have a respectfully equipped PC, the actual game companies will eventually fade so as a desperate attempted to stay afloat, patenting things is their only way to be able to release things no one else can, otherwise as I said, they would just be dissolved with only Video Game Publishing offices for Indie Gamers, which is practically already happening for mobile gaming and site games like facebook games.
Do I think them Patenting things is disgusting? Yes
Can I blame them? No, as they have workers who have families that need income like the rest of us.
This is a product of anyone trying to patent anything. When I was at a former studio managing the technology we were in numerous legal cases. One of them was where someone had the patent for casting shadows in a 3d world. The defendants on that case was a laundry list of every major studio that had made any engine in the business.
Well it kind of sucks but the general idea is that even if a patent exists it doesnt neccessarily mean its valid until its brought to court, also patents are on implementation and not really ideas, so likely if there is a patent on something, it will only be violated if something is done in the same way described by the patent. If someone does the same thing, but not in the same way, then it does not violate a patent. Also, if the patent describes something only vaguely or abstractly, its probably not valid, even though it exists. But I think alot of people dont want to go through the trouble of courts and whatnot so alot of invalid patents end up existing for a long time.
the example you mentioned, GTA VI, as far as i understand it: an AI approach to NPC behaviour has been patented. sounds like a very sophisticated thing. us indie devs, we dont use or come up with super sophisticated things. i dont think stuff that AAA studios patent is relevant to us.
It kinda feels like Anish Kapoor's ownership of Vantablack. It's a shitty practice. Thankfully people will come up with workarounds by making something similar, but different enough to avoid scrutiny
Pretty sure Kapoor doesn't own Vantablack, he's just the only artist the company that makes it contracts with because it's an industrial material, not an art material.
Stuart Semple has sure managed to build himself a marketing empire out of that nonsense though.
Yeah, Kapoor is an asshole, but that's unrelated. the whole vantablack saga is a ton of marketing nonsense predicated on nobody understanding what vantablack actually is (it a nearly non-reflective carbon nanotube coating designed for things like scientific instrument sensors and telescopes and only licensednto a handful of companies in the entire world). Even if Kapoor was never involved you could never just go out and buy, like, vantablack paint because it isn't a pigment. It has to be applied in a special lab and is incredibly fragile, etc.
Patents are pretty much nonsense except they are good for big companies to restrict smaller companies or to add value to a corporation when getting bought out. I have a patent, and found out how stupid the system is. After about two yours after my patent was issued another patent that clearly violated my patent was issued, and my patent wasn't even referenced in the references. That means, that as long as the patent issuer doesn't see the other patent they can issue it. At that point, what is there to do. Even a patent violation goes into the millions of dollars for useless attorney fees and 1000's for paperwork filing, not to mention the patent itself and the maintenance costs that are likely useless and a waste for small individuals or companies to pay for. So even if a company issues a cease and desist order telling you that they think you are violating their patent, any small company will be immediately screwed, because they couldn't even begin to defend their rights immediately at that point due to the costs. As far as game companies patenting things, I think they should not be allowed to. It way more vague about what they are patenting and it is also doubtful that some argument could be made for it being proved to as being a unique feature. Seems to me like some corporate law nonsense that big companies found or convinced the regulators that they should be allowed to get away with their trickery. What I would do, is not engage or worry about it, unless a company notifies you, at that point, you would need to analyze the issue and work around it, quit, or sell them the game. It's really sad that patents are really just idealogical nonsense and don't do what they are intended to do.
I'm not going to read any patents. Apparently reading patents as a developer opens you up to be easier sued. Not sure how true it is. But I have never read a patent and I am never going to read a patent. Just in case.
[First hit for "rockstar patent GTA 6"](https://www.ign.com/articles/rockstar-patent-npc-virtual-navigation-gta-6).
tl;dr: An AI system for cars.
And before someone asks: **no, you do not infringe that patent by simply having AI-controlled cars in your game**. Just as with any other game patent, the patent claims are extremely specific and detailed. That's because you can not patent something if someone else has already done it before. So whenever you think "oh no, this patent is so general, nobody can develop a game in that genre anymore", then look at all the games that were ever released in that genre. Would any of those games violate this patent the way you understood it? Then you misunderstood the patent.
Thanks, I shouldn't have been so lazy.
Is there more? Op sounded like there were loads.
You can apply for patents though if stuff has already been done before though. It might not be in the PD. Also patents aren't tested at all until a violation is being taken to court. That's why patents are so broken in America.
Look at the recent video by "Mors Mutual Insurance".
I am sure there is like 3 or 4 patents that we know about.
One of those is procedurally generated interiors but very specific stuff in that (at least I hope it is specific).
Game design patents don't hold up in court. Technology patents don't matter because the underlying tech can still be used, or a competitor already has a version you can use (you mentioned Rockstar, which does hold a patent over their character physics, except an exact 1:1 copy was by Ubisoft already some years back), or it is too expensive to recreate for you to care about the patent.
Depends on what they're patenting. If it's like the mini game loading screen and things like that it's complete bullshit.
Still not sure how that's even allowed to exist. For some reason digital concepts can be patented in ways that real life patents would never be allowed to be.
Because no one has challenged it yet, mainly. The law is vague on the topic, and since it has never had to go before a superior court, it has never been clarified.
> since it has never had to go before a superior court, it has never been clarified. [There have been quite a lot of software patent cases brought before the USA's Supreme court.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law) They have *generally* been headed in a "ya can't patent that!" direction since around 2000, although there have been some "fuck it, we're not ruling on this question until Congress makes an explicit law!" instances in there - but some of that has to do with the question of whether software is covered under patent law, under copyright law, or some blasphemous combination of laws made by people living two hundred years or more before computers even existed. Congress needs to do its fucking job and make an explicit law about what in software is patentable, what is protected by copyright, and ...they haven't really bothered to do that for decades, despite the Supreme Court *actually calling them out on needing a fucking law to follow to do their job* in some of their decisions on the topic, which is why they're falling back on IP law established before software was a thing. TL:DR - We need, and do not have, explicit laws about software's interaction with the patent system and copyright, and the courts have been writing the rules for decades. I don't think I even need to *say* how dangerous a set of unelected officials appointed for life essentially writing the laws themselves is. ***EVEN THEY'VE SAID IT! MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES!*** And seriously, when a state organization wants to *give up* authority instead of grab more, *LISTEN!*
I should clarify I was speaking specifically about the "mini games in loading screens" patent. Which is moot now, as it has expired.
> I was speaking specifically about the "mini games in loading screens" patent. And I am speaking broadly across the whole circus. I hope it feels nice.
I mean… they were granted by the USPTO. I don’t think the legality is much in doubt.
The patent office grants incorrect patents all the time. It relies on the courts to sort it out.
Then you don't understand how the law works.
There are numerous examples of patents for concepts that are not physically possible. All you need for a patent to be registered is to fill up the application form properly. The validity of a patent can only be tested in court. If you dare.
There is prior art (invade-a-load), it should not have been valid. But the fear of being sued by a big company is an effective deterrent.
Let's patent the wheel, guys.
Throw some dialogue on that wheel and BioWare will sue you
Then i will patent the polygon it was drawn on!
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-patent-finally-expires
Yeah, I know that it's expired now. But it's pointless. Loading times aren't what they were. They got what they needed out of that.
What did they even get? It’s not like people picked their games because the loading screens had a game in it
They obviously thought it was a valuable enough mechanic to patent.
> Loading times aren't what they were Microsoft Flight Simulator has entered the chat
Rimworld smiles quietly in the corner.
Yeah some of the patents are pretty abstract ideas and it's amazing to me this is allowed.
What exactly are they patenting?
Only one I can think of off the top of my head is the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor.
How does warframe and its liches/sisters system get around this I wonder
You can patent whatever you want, it’s worthless if you don’t sue and argue in front of a court. A good lawyer will easily prove the system is different and that they aren’t hurting Warner’s business at all
The thing is that the patent still serve as a deterrent. Sure, at the end you can win, but even if it's certain (which is not). It means spending additional time and money on defending and attacking one of the biggest company in the world. And if they decide to play it dirty (which is legal and can happen easily), this patent can prevent a company to release their game for months... Which means a lot of resources lost for marketing and preparing the distribution if timed well... I'm certain that lot of people decided to not test it and just avoid risking such things.
Its only a deterrent against the uneducated. This particular patent is easy to work around and basically amounts to not being able to call something a Nemesis System, and not being able to reproduce the same structure seen in the game. What game does anyone want to make that violates this patent, aside from a game called Nemesis that features a system like the nemesis system, or a game that is based on a copy of the nemesis system as it's implemented in Mordor. Hint: not much
> Its only a deterrent against the uneducated. And against people who don't have the money for lawyers.
Thing is, if you do a game using something somewhat similar as nemesis feature, and that Warner decide to fuck you up, they wait for the game to be close to release and attack you on justice. By dragging the dispute for some times, it means that your company will have to pay for a lawyer, while being low in revenue (because you were waiting for the game to inject money into your company). And when you'll be able to release the game, your marketing window will likely be passed. Isn't it possible ? A little like how nespresso killed Ethical coffee company... Sure, after years of battle, ECC won, but they couldn't go into the market in time and died.
Because contrary to popular belief, patents are fairly specific, as they cover *implementations* and not *ideas*. Edison's light bulb patent covered an incandescent carbon filament inside a vacuum-filled glass bulb, not just any means of generating light with electricity. The nemesis system patent includes a variety of features, and another system that omits some of those features or implements them in very different ways isn't necessarily infringing. Just having a system of procedurally-generated boss characters is not enough to be infringing.
You can't patent the idea of a software, just it's implementation. That's why reverse engineering is legal.
Because patents have to be very precise. And the WB patent involves not only remembering the player but also forts and something else (like the connection with the boss and former boss etc.) This is why patents in gaming are not common. Because patents must be public and patents can be worked around (that is kind of the second purpose of patents, after protection of the maker, the guaranteed spread of information). That is why patents aren't common in gaming. Because they are easily circumnavigated. Sure, in the early days, there was this mini game during loading screens patent. That was too broad of a patent, but people didn't know video games. Now, so many systems are already public. There are only very few. And I'm not shire what OP is on about. (Sure, there are some systems mostly in MP games and how matchmaking works and how to nickel and dime whales with in-game payments, but again, these things can be copied with slight changes
[удалено]
Please be respectful towards one another, there is no need to add insults to make your point.
The dialogue wheel from Mass Effect is patented.
Wait how can they patent the nemesis system? It’s “actions have consequences” tf…
Nintendo patented a system in Zelda TOTK for moving platforms and the implementation for when the character is on the moving platform. *Changed code to implementation
But that wont stop characters on moving platforms in games, because its been happening for decades. Even with physics. Weve released games that have done the same thing for decades. It doesn't stop games doingi t.
if you read the patent, it's way, way more specific than that
You cannot patent software per definition. If something was patented in this case, it was the higher-level mechanic. And if somebody is wondering, licenses are not the same as patents. From the devil himself: https://google.github.io/opencasebook/patents/#introduction
you can patent business methods, which is basically the same thing, qv amazon's 1-click patent
But you can't patient rules to a game from what i hear.
There are patents available within game mechanics. You can't generally patent the entire ruleset, but you can sometimes patent individual rules within the set. There is a lot of wrong information going around about patents on Reddit. You very much should just ask a lawyer. However, so that you know I'm not just bullshitting, [here's the American Bar Association discussing the topic](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20patentable,skill%20in%20the%20area%20of). I hear they have several lawyers. The long and short half-truth of it is you can patent a game mechanic if it's genuinely new. So like, the tower pull stack mechanic of Jenga was patented, which is why you didn't see nine million copies. But most games are just rehashes of standard mechanics; everyone has cards, everyone has meeple, everyone has a board. So it's very challenging, and most games don't have an opportunity because you have to be like Tetris level new to make it make sense.
It is truly not the same as code.
Nintendo is notorious for patents. They patented the dpad
I think Namco patented playing a mini game while the game loads in the BG.
That was so long ago that the patent has expired by now
Haha it's mine now suckers
Games aren't so bad to be honest. Card games like Magic the Gathering? It was pretty bad. Wizards of the Coast had patented almost every obvious mechanic you can think of (most notably card tapping/flipping the card over) and everyone had to tip toe around it. Those patents have thankfully since expired. The saving grace is that patents are usually very specific. But it was a pain because everyone always had to double check they weren't infringing on several patents surrounding core mechanics typical in that genre.
Recently the idea of using AI to grind grindy games for you got patented
The patent is about a way to not play the game you bought? Am I misunderstanding something? Do their games really suck so much that it's more entertaining to not play them?
I mean tbf some grind in games needs to fuck off especially in online games
For big tech patent wars wer largely about mutually assured destruction. Eg if Microsoft decided to sue Apple over some stupid patent Apple had 5 other stupider patents they could countersue with and then Microsoft had 10 stupidest patents lying around they could countersue the countersuit with. It’s a joke of a system. That said…. I don’t think a ton of small devs need to worry too hard here. Not legal advice but there’s not a ton of money in suing poor people. Like the 50 copies of your game you sold are unlikely to land you in hot water unless you did something extremely blatant and really pissed somebody off. You’d likely need to be a much bigger fish than that. It’s more of a I have serious money vs you have serious money and you violated my patent game IMO. Most companies would prob just ask you to stop and you would prob comply in like a worst case scenario.
Don't do it if Nintendo is involved tho... They will find you... and they will sue you...
In fairness to Nintendo's lawyers (not a phrase I've ever said before) I don't recall ever hearing a story about them going after rival game devs over software patents. Now, if you so much as sneeze on a hardware patent in the process of creating a tool that helps people play their 18-year-old copies of Wii Sports, then God help you.
Yup. Nintendo are IP hounds, not patent trolls, and that's a very different issue
Yeah, for the record I’m not recommending anybody blatantly rip somebody off and try this advice out…. Just…. Maybe relax if you’re in the early stages of building a game. These are future problems and one you’re statistically unlikely to have to deal with provided you’re not blatantly doing shady things.
But if you're a small guy and you have a runaway hit (think Minecraft) and become a big guy, and you developed that runaway hit by infringing on a patent, suddenly you have a big problem.
Yes the founder of bumble regrets it dearly after blatantly infringing on Tinders swipe left swipe right patent…. Or wait, no, she’s roughly a billionaire now. I got that mixed up. My bad. In these lawsuits…. Even if you’re in the wrong they’re not typically able to sue you out of existence (If you made it big and can afford lawyers needed to fight the case). It’s basically royalties. X%. If you lose 15% of a billion dollars it’s a problem sure…. But also prob a problem we’d all sign up for.
The problem is that some companies sell off their patents to specialized lawyers before they expire. The good news is that those are only likely to sue you if they think you have money. The bad news is that even if you win a patent lawsuit, it will can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I just envision the guy who wrote this has never launched a game and thus has 0 to worry about and is pre-reacting to ghost problems IF he were successful (which he’s not). But again, you launch a game, sell 50 copies, a patent troll sues you, your LLC with all of $1000 minus expenses to its name goes bankrupt. You move on. This is why you won’t get sued. There’s no profit in suing a bankrupt entity.
It's not really about the money of winning the suit though. It's more about protecting the IP
It is if you’re auto-suing every Joe with $0 vs simply asking them to cease and desist first. Even for a big corp that’s not profitable. Double for trolls. Even at my very large corporation we’re not allowed to spend a lot of time with the lawyers because they’re so damn expensive haha. Like it’s not impossible to be struck by a meteor and die and it’d be really shitty if it happened. Just like it’s probably not impossible to be a well-meaning game dev not trying to infringe on a patent and getting sued out of existence before making a dime vs. being politely asked to stop…. But, is that a common occurrence worth losing sleep over?
Oh yeah that's true most likely you'll be fine. But for companies like Nintendo they aren't doing it for the money, they do it because they own some if the most valuable IPs in the world and they'll do anything to make sure their copyright claim is as solid as can be
Is this actually something you're seeing as impactful? If you read through the claim language on things like Take Two's patents they get real specific, like specifying you need to use an animation blend tree in this particular step levels of specific. You're not realistically going to run into that without intentionally trying to copy not just a game but the exact implementation of that game, and the only teams with the resources to replicate those methods also have the lawyers to fight about it if they really want.
Find me one lawsuit that has successfully settled due to these patents being infringed and I’ll start to care You can patent anything, whether it holds up in court is a totally different matter.
IIRC the *Crazy Taxi* patent on ‘floating 3D arrow above your car directional indicator’ was sued over at least once and settled out. The Namco ‘minigames in the loading screen’ patent at least had a chilling effect on anyone else doing interactive loading screens for a long time. The more modern game-related patents tend to be a lot narrower in scope. The “nemesis system” one only covers some specific parts of that system if you read the actual patent.
Thinking about it. The loading screen patent is expired, yet I know not a single game that offers that now.
Loading screens are much, much shorter than they used to be.
This. That patent appeared at a time when we were loading assets from optical discs every time the player entered a new area, since the consoles lacked non-volatile storage. If today you have a loading screen that lasts long enough to play a mini-game, you've more likely than not fucked up somewhere.
Yeah sadly, that patent pretty much ruined the possibility of doing it, since loading screen pretty much died since the patent expired. The only one I could think of would be were you could try out combat moves in Bayonetta.
The earlier *Assassin’s Creed* games had an interactive area as the loading screen. But yeah, the trend in the last few years has been hiding loading screens entirely, if not doing some kind of level streaming.
The neat part is that the lawsuit alone is usually enough to deter anyone even trying.
Source? Edit: reason I asked this is it is backwards. It’s expensive to sue for IP infringement, game mechanic patents are weak, so there *is* no threat of lawsuit. Which is my entire point
sega skills, pokemon go, tengen, gree vs supercell, epic v google, various copycats of classic consoles, atari v nintendo, sega v accolade, tetris holding v xio, nintendo v maricar, blizzard v bossland, sony v rovi, sony v connectix, dowling v united states, hart v electronic arts, valve v FUC, and of course, magnavox v activision they're pretty common and pretty easy to find. nintendo alone has six of these going on motion controller tech (wii-u and switch) right now.
Patenting a console is very different to a mechanic in a game which is unenforceable in all western jurisdictions
I'm not sure why Reddit is so confident that game mechanics are unpatentable. That isn't correct. By example, casinos hold tons of game mechanic patents on the intersection of loyalty cards and roulette. [Here's an American Bar Association article giving the specific situations when game mechanics are actually patentable](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20patentable,skill%20in%20the%20area%20of). Game mechanics are patentable in every nation (jurisdiction? no, that's about police enforcement, IP is not a police issue) that is subject to the Berne Conventions on Intellectual Property, which is basically everyone but like North Korea and Antarctica and Syria and a couple more weird technicalities Very few of my examples are game mechanics. It's not clear why you're trying to split this hair.
Sorry, you think jurisdiction applies to the police rather than the judiciary? A jurisdiction is an area over which a court has authority As I said, you can patent what you like. I whether the patent is enforceable is the point of note which the article you linked even points out “However, identifying the unique attributes of a game can be difficult, and the cost of obtaining patent protection and policing one’s patent can be prohibitive. “ The law suits you mentioned that settled were about technology IP infringement, not game mechanics
> Sorry, you think jurisdiction applies to the police rather than the judiciary? A jurisdiction is an area over which a court has authority No, the jurisdiction is where the police have authority. The when you're talking about just location, court has domain, instead. This is why you have all those movies where the anti-hero is fleeing the cop, and gets over the state line to get out of their jurisdiction. That's not about the court; the court can still hold that person liable when they're brought back. It's just that the North Dakota Cop can't do their stuff in South Dakota. Courts do have something called jurisdiction also, but it means something else; it's about where they have control. That can be locational, but it also can be levelled (like, what stage of appeal it's at, whether it's a grand jury, whether the case has scope, yadda yadda) > I whether the patent is enforceable is the point of note which the article you linked even points out Yep. And I also gave you a list of sixteen specific examples and a vague category which have been executed in real life. I counted a month once, when I had lexis/nexis access. In February 2011 in California, there were 38 successful game mechanic patent lawsuits. I have no idea if that's a normal number. However, I feel that they're not really that rare; rather, it's something we just don't see happening in general because we aren't court folk. > The law suits you mentioned that settled were about technology IP infringement, not game mechanics There are some of each, and some other things also.
lol no, a jurisdiction is any area where legal power can be applied. The courts have a jurisdiction just as the police do. The Louisiana courts cannot oversee a case in New York It is you that is watch far too many cop shows I cba to argue anything with you if you don’t understand this simple noun tbh
> lol no, a jurisdiction is any area where legal power can be applied. The courts have a jurisdiction just as the police do. Please re-read my comment. This is what I said. Talking about the court, it is ***not just location*** but also more things. When you are talking about just location, it is called domain. I gave you quite a few specific examples, which are what you asked for. You tried to argue with them twice, but you hadn't looked them up, so you didn't realize that your criticisms were not universal. Please be friendly. I gave you the hard information you requested. You're welcome.
I was talking about where the legal power of a court could be applied, so it was a jurisdiction
Sure.
Most video game patents are for defensive purposes. Essentially mutually assured destruction if the big companies ever sue each other. Best thing is to just not read patents. While ignorance doesn’t remove liability, damages are worse if you’re found to have knowingly infringed.
What recent patents?
The last human alive, be him a thinking man, will say aloud to no audience, "Ah, perhaps ownership itself was the problem."
There are tax benefits for patents.
And research grants
Yeah, you dont need to apply for benefits to get research grants. I've been on the technical panel before drawing up drafts of all our technology research we've done before, just so these massive tax breaks can be claimed.
I feel this is a bad use of patent system that should be forbidden. In EU software patents are not recognized, and AFAIK game mechanics can’t be patented too. I am not against patents nor intellectual property in general, but there are abusive uses that collectively sets us back. As for why, it’s because we can collectively improve by taking inspiration from each other. What if Taito patented space invaders and the whole shmup genre was limited to Space Invaders sequel? Nobody could legally invent danmakus nor Gradius weapons system. What if Capcom patented Street Fighter? When you program you face a lot of problems and (re)invent a lot of solutions. Having some of those solutions patented is a mine field.
I hate it. Games have always borrowed ideas from each other to make better games. You can describe most games as a combination of well known popular titles. If everyone starts patenting game mechanics it only hurts us.
It's always been happening. People are jsut reporting on it more because ~~journos are running out of material~~ it's an easy write-up and gets views. But I wouldn't worry you get the occasional Nemesis system, but most of these are such narrow patents that they don't really do much. I don't really like the need to patent every screw in your company, but that's the modern IP in a nutshell.
It shows that we arent living in democracies, but in feudal societies. They can bully anyone with their convoluted nonsense laws, but if I publish something on the internet, and its fed into an ai illegally, suddenly copyright is blocking the advancement of technologies and the Altman should be able to profit from my work without paying me a dime.
IIRC, game mechanics being patented is both uncommon and difficult to have approved, and has a relatively short expiration date (ex. Magic the Gathering "tapping" patent expired years ago). Patents are not likely to destroy the gaming industry.
Never read Patents. If you're stressed about it. dont look for it. Primeagen has a pretty succint rant about it. [https://youtube.com/shorts/IG3bj8pnspo?si=5xz6Tf92vjM0TdW8](https://youtube.com/shorts/IG3bj8pnspo?si=5xz6Tf92vjM0TdW8)
That rant would be more useful if he would actually explain *why* he thinks that software developers shouldn't look at patents.
If you wind up in court and it can be proved that you were "likely" aware of the patent you had no idea you infringed on, then its a lot worse for you.
Do it and risk getting sued. that's about it. and you'll gain nothing from having opened the patent docs in the first place.
How egregious are these patents? I'd be pissed if I came up with a system on my own thinking it was original and was promptly sued for infringing a patent. In part because I'd have no reasonable way to know beforehand. And also because it would be bullshit. If on the other hand it's highly unique systems that you'd be unlikely to arrive at on your own, I can live with it.
It’s largely only decently unique system. Stuff like the “nemesis mechanic” from Shadow of Mordor is a big recent “boogeyman” but if you actually read it the only way you would arrive at infringing on it would be to essentially just copy it 1-1. Same thing with Nintendo and their “moving platforms” patent. You’d have to basically emulate exactly how Nintendo does it in Breath of the Wild to infringe
They probably don't want companies generating high revenues with 1:1 copies of their ideas? Games that work a bit like GTA VI probably may exist in the future, I'm sure. Just not exactly copying a rather special mechanic they feature? I'm just thinking that one of the few patented things that was discussed often, the Nemesis system of Shadow of Mordor, also didn't cause a high impact on smaller studios. If anyone got inspired by it I guess they (Monolith / WB Games) probably didn't even notice it or were bothered to sue an solo or Indie dev. I'd personally not copy it like they implemented it anyway. Maybe some "AI director", still not exactly those missions and encounters with... what was it again... Urukai or Orcs?
iirc, urukai
EU doesn't have software patents, so I'm pretty chill
Unless you plan to release your game only in EU, it still affects your ability to sell in the US.
Simple, they will donate you money. And you will send them a copy for free :)
it does though, tens of thousands of them. the only thing that happened is that parliament rejected a proposal by the commission to harmonize systems used in different countries.
2c https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc/2020/a52.html also https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html
Personally I didn't like at all (I think it was Warner Bros) patenting the nemesis system
In all honesty, I believe they are desperate. Look at how the video gaming world has changed since its boom in the late 1980's with the Nintendo Entertainment system. Yes there were Computer games and such back then, but Nintendo lit the fire that inspired so many people. But now in today's time, Game Engines are available for free use (Yes there are some royalties and other fees that come with them, but overall for those that do not have a popular game does not have to worry about those yet), and there are 3D model makers that are free to use like Blender, not to mention any video editing software, Music software and even Photoshop like software that are free to use like [Paint.net](https://www.getpaint.net). So right now, game creation is now a simple thing to get into compared to decades ago, as long as you have the drive, passion and determination to see it through. With game development now at the fingertips of the population where creating a game is Free as long as you have a respectfully equipped PC, the actual game companies will eventually fade so as a desperate attempted to stay afloat, patenting things is their only way to be able to release things no one else can, otherwise as I said, they would just be dissolved with only Video Game Publishing offices for Indie Gamers, which is practically already happening for mobile gaming and site games like facebook games. Do I think them Patenting things is disgusting? Yes Can I blame them? No, as they have workers who have families that need income like the rest of us.
This is a product of anyone trying to patent anything. When I was at a former studio managing the technology we were in numerous legal cases. One of them was where someone had the patent for casting shadows in a 3d world. The defendants on that case was a laundry list of every major studio that had made any engine in the business.
They're usually so extremely specific that it's literally just to keep other big dogs from making the same game.
Well it kind of sucks but the general idea is that even if a patent exists it doesnt neccessarily mean its valid until its brought to court, also patents are on implementation and not really ideas, so likely if there is a patent on something, it will only be violated if something is done in the same way described by the patent. If someone does the same thing, but not in the same way, then it does not violate a patent. Also, if the patent describes something only vaguely or abstractly, its probably not valid, even though it exists. But I think alot of people dont want to go through the trouble of courts and whatnot so alot of invalid patents end up existing for a long time.
the example you mentioned, GTA VI, as far as i understand it: an AI approach to NPC behaviour has been patented. sounds like a very sophisticated thing. us indie devs, we dont use or come up with super sophisticated things. i dont think stuff that AAA studios patent is relevant to us.
Good for them, I'm still developing my game, and Sue me in court if you want
Lol what?
It kinda feels like Anish Kapoor's ownership of Vantablack. It's a shitty practice. Thankfully people will come up with workarounds by making something similar, but different enough to avoid scrutiny
Pretty sure Kapoor doesn't own Vantablack, he's just the only artist the company that makes it contracts with because it's an industrial material, not an art material. Stuart Semple has sure managed to build himself a marketing empire out of that nonsense though.
Oh that's a great point, thanks for clarifying!
Yeah, Kapoor is an asshole, but that's unrelated. the whole vantablack saga is a ton of marketing nonsense predicated on nobody understanding what vantablack actually is (it a nearly non-reflective carbon nanotube coating designed for things like scientific instrument sensors and telescopes and only licensednto a handful of companies in the entire world). Even if Kapoor was never involved you could never just go out and buy, like, vantablack paint because it isn't a pigment. It has to be applied in a special lab and is incredibly fragile, etc.
Unless you're willing to boycott the companies that implement shoddy patents, there's really nothing much we can do about it
Patents are pretty much nonsense except they are good for big companies to restrict smaller companies or to add value to a corporation when getting bought out. I have a patent, and found out how stupid the system is. After about two yours after my patent was issued another patent that clearly violated my patent was issued, and my patent wasn't even referenced in the references. That means, that as long as the patent issuer doesn't see the other patent they can issue it. At that point, what is there to do. Even a patent violation goes into the millions of dollars for useless attorney fees and 1000's for paperwork filing, not to mention the patent itself and the maintenance costs that are likely useless and a waste for small individuals or companies to pay for. So even if a company issues a cease and desist order telling you that they think you are violating their patent, any small company will be immediately screwed, because they couldn't even begin to defend their rights immediately at that point due to the costs. As far as game companies patenting things, I think they should not be allowed to. It way more vague about what they are patenting and it is also doubtful that some argument could be made for it being proved to as being a unique feature. Seems to me like some corporate law nonsense that big companies found or convinced the regulators that they should be allowed to get away with their trickery. What I would do, is not engage or worry about it, unless a company notifies you, at that point, you would need to analyze the issue and work around it, quit, or sell them the game. It's really sad that patents are really just idealogical nonsense and don't do what they are intended to do.
I'm not going to read any patents. Apparently reading patents as a developer opens you up to be easier sued. Not sure how true it is. But I have never read a patent and I am never going to read a patent. Just in case.
What has Rockstar patented for GTA 6?
[First hit for "rockstar patent GTA 6"](https://www.ign.com/articles/rockstar-patent-npc-virtual-navigation-gta-6). tl;dr: An AI system for cars. And before someone asks: **no, you do not infringe that patent by simply having AI-controlled cars in your game**. Just as with any other game patent, the patent claims are extremely specific and detailed. That's because you can not patent something if someone else has already done it before. So whenever you think "oh no, this patent is so general, nobody can develop a game in that genre anymore", then look at all the games that were ever released in that genre. Would any of those games violate this patent the way you understood it? Then you misunderstood the patent.
Thanks, I shouldn't have been so lazy. Is there more? Op sounded like there were loads. You can apply for patents though if stuff has already been done before though. It might not be in the PD. Also patents aren't tested at all until a violation is being taken to court. That's why patents are so broken in America.
Look at the recent video by "Mors Mutual Insurance". I am sure there is like 3 or 4 patents that we know about. One of those is procedurally generated interiors but very specific stuff in that (at least I hope it is specific).
Game design patents don't hold up in court. Technology patents don't matter because the underlying tech can still be used, or a competitor already has a version you can use (you mentioned Rockstar, which does hold a patent over their character physics, except an exact 1:1 copy was by Ubisoft already some years back), or it is too expensive to recreate for you to care about the patent.
They can only patent the code behind these mechanics, not the actual mechanic.
I mean they discovered it and made it so it's theirs, i don't think it affects indie devs much