Sounds like Nintendo wants to go on a litigation spree.
A related patent defines a mechanic that prevents Link from grabbing an object he is on top of using Ultrahand, which also seems rather intuitive. The patent does, however, go into details such as the mechanic also blocking Link from using Ultrahand on objects which have been joined to an object he is on top of.
The word “obvious” comes to mind.
“a game processing method capable of enriching game presentation during a waiting period in which at least part of the game processing is interrupted” and consists of filling up the loading period that ensues after the user inputs their fast travel destination with a sequence in which an image of the starting point’s map transitions into a map of the destination. After this sequence, the character is placed into the virtual space of the destination.
Thankfully, we can appreciate things that are obvious or aren’t novel without granting a society-funded monopoly on them. In fact, both those criteria generally disqualify them from patent, for good reason.
Good point. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not in support of them getting a patent for it, and I'm against patents in general. I'm just saying I loved it more than I expected, and want to see it more.
Nintendo has IP lawyers. They have to, at their scale, because they will constantly be bombarded by patent trolls, licensing companies etc. trying to extract profit out of Nintendo. So, like any other large business, they hire IP lawyers to protect themselves.
Most patent disagreements are resolved by cross-licensing. That’s where one business says, in response to a law suit, “oh, but you’re actually using 6 of our patents, so maybe we can come to an agreement”. A patent is both a shield and a sword. Even against trolls they can be useful, as they can be used to argue against troll arguments, if it gets to court, or pull in other business to the defense, if helpful.
IP lawyers know this. So they extract every patent they can out of everything a company does, as a way to build up the IP bank.
So, I highly doubt “Nintendo wants to prevent others” bla bla. It’s just IP lawyers doing their job.
I’ve sat in MANY discovery sessions with IP lawyers where they push and prod at software I, or my team, have written. “So, what you’ve effectively done is written a unique data structure to connect elements in memory?!”, “no, it’s a linked list, next question please”.
Everytime I hear something new about nintendo I like them less. Which sucks because I know there's no chance of kirby going anywhere else without emulation.
I didn’t realize they released it on Steam. They chose a terrible time. Remnant 2 is out, so is Baldurs Gate 3. Dead by Daylight has Alien expansion around the corner. They’re too late. But a good step. I hate battlenet.
50,000 reviews now. It’s a shame, I used to play OW1 a lot even after they stopped providing new content for it. Came to OW2 and I just couldn’t be arsed to grind for characters I don’t have unlocked. You need to win 35 games, and since there’s a basically forced 50% winrate that means you need to play 70 games to unlock a character each time. Wanted to play Ramattra, saw he’s locked, uninstalled and didn’t look back. The monetization is terrible. The balance feels worse than it’s ever been.
This wouldn’t be such a problem if they didn’t literally SHUT DOWN OVERWATCH 1 to shove people into the cash shop grind sequel
I know next to nothing about neither Ow1 or OW2, but from the sound of it they turned OW2 into a game focused on grinding, where you can pay to skip (part of) the grind. Is my assessment correct? If so they must’ve looked at War Thunder and taken that idea.
Yes. OW1 cost money, but you got all the content. The only paid service was cosmetic outfits for the different characters. You could buy loot boxes for cosmetics. But you had all of the characters, maps, game modes, etc available to begin with. You got the whole game, then could grind for cosmetics.
OW2 takes that and flips it on its head. The game is free, but each character costs money. The problem is that they shut down OW1, so now the players who owned 1 are having to grind for everything. They’ve also had some weird server bugs, with players getting indefinitely locked out of characters they already own.
Wait. I bought overwatch 1 but stopped playing a few years ago. If I go back into overwatch I would have to grind for characters that I used to previously have access to?
Yeah, but honestly I don‘t think it ruins the game. Sure, it’s not the best idea, but I don‘t care too much. I actually care more about the fact that the gameplay currently sucks and is completely different to Overwatch 1. 5v5 and the overall balancing sucks.
That’s not the balance, that’s the gameplay. There are still balance problems like the era of Mercy damage amping.
And while they’ve solved the CC and barriers problem, they’ve made teamfights too swingy. With only 5v5 and a single op tank, teamfights are often basically over after a single death or a single Rez. Especially for the tank. That’s just too much pressure, so nobody wants to tank anymore.
So don’t? You get the new hero like a month or so later then. I haven’t put a dime into ow since I bought it. You don’t need the cosmetics. Let the dumb whales fund the game.
I personally think Overwatch 2 is a great game compared to OW1, especially for going F2P and removing the loot box. I have played OW1 since 2017 but since it is a paid game, none of my friends play it and we all played Apex instead when it came out.
Fast forward to 2022, they actually removed loot box (fuck gambling) and made it F2P. I have been playing OW2 almost every day since launch. Haven’t touched Apex a single time since then.
I never played ow1 but I did enjoy OW2. One of the few multiplayer shooters where I didn’t suck. However I noticed I got very frustrated by it and seemed to get addicted as well. Also noticed I enjoyed other games less. Stopped playing and feeling better now.
I liked the free lootboxes with chances of getting cool stuff than the damn $20 every couple months battle passes where you actually cannot get anything interesting without paying for it.
You liked getting free cool stuff, not the loot boxes. They can still give away cool stuff for free even without loot boxes but they chose to stop doing so and it sucks.
I think the Battle Pass is fair, it’s $10 every 2 months. It helps keep the game running. Overwatch 1 was going to die if they kept going with the old business model.
I stopped playing when they did not let people pick the same heroes. Played more for the fun and the chaos. Did not care if I won as long as I was having fun but the game went the pro gamer route.
I think this kind of content warnings kind of makes sense for children’s television. But these are games primarily targeted towards adults. We’re able to form our own opinion.
If there’s no label, the option to not ignore it isn’t even there.
If you guys are really in favor of adults being able to make their own informed decisions, hiding important warnings is not the way to go. Or maybe you just want to complain, like many other people.
I design and operate monitoring systems, and let me tell you, information fatigue is a real thing. Warning labels make sense when sensibly used; otherwise people get conditioned to ignore them, even if they would be crucial. Think of road signs: if there was a speed limit of 10 before every turn, all speed limits would soon lose credibility.
Hardest part of the job is actually learning which alerts we need to keep and which to trim… if we simply slap warnings on everything, everyone would ignore them soon enough.
I’ve been an adult for a little while now and I can confirm: Adults don’t exist. We’re all children with various levels of impulse control. But it is frustrating when you feel like you’re being treated like a child. The reason I learned not to repeat swear words on TV wasn’t because they took all the swear words out. It’s because I repeated them, got in trouble, and learned my lesson. So, I’m not against it, but it shouldn’t be news worthy that someone chose not to butcher prior art.
I think it’s stupid that this behavior is considered worthy of an article. This is how we should be handling this all the time. If the values change, then update the content rating, but don’t touch the content. And for some reason the norm right now is to completely memory hole anything that doesn’t fit the values. I should have been clearer with my comment.
Unrelated to video games but Taylor Swift has a song where she threatens to tell the friends of her Ex that he’s gay for breaking up with her. This has since been replaced entirely with a new line and can’t be found on anything but the original 2006 release.
Can you still legally obtain a copy of the 2006 version? Because with music, if it’s a separate release, it doesn’t affect the past work. This is all, obviously, just my opinion. I feel that games suffer from the effects of this more because often when a “remaster” comes out for a 15 year old game, then it’s the only way to play it, because there’s no legal way to obtain a new copy of the old version.
Now that I think about I think the real difference is that games and other software require constant support, then music audio files don’t. Most people do consume music from a streaming platform, but you can still buy most of it in a physical format that you then are allowed to content shift to a format you can actually play. And theoretically once the copyright runs out, it can be shared. Although Disney has been ruining that for a while now. Games, for the most part are less “stable”. And since there’s almost no legal protection for people sharing old dead games, then the remasters can effectively erase prior art if they change content.
gamesradar.com
Najstarsze