Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KE
Posts
3
Comments
569
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I had a think about this scenario and I think that if Steam was going to present this argument they would need to document and support this workflow. At the moment the fact that it sometimes works is more of an accident than anything (essentially it's all just files on a disc and sometimes the files still work if you move them somewhere else).

    But if they document that you can transfer the install data to another location, and identify which titles that applies to? Then I can see a reasonable argument that they qualify.

  • This article seems to say that it covers only digital items that have an always online requirement.

    https://www.gamefile.news/p/california-ab2426-crew-call-of-duty

    So i think offline games don't need the warning, but online games, steaming movies, etc do need the warning.

    Edit:

    I looked a bit further and found the bill text:

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426#99INT

    (4) This section does not apply to any of the following:

    [...]

    (C) Any digital good that is advertised or offered to a person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet.

    This exception clearly allows for user downloadable installer for a game with offline functionality. But consoles, steam, etc where you don't get a standalone installer, they look like they will need the warning on all titles.

  • Oh! So that treaty somewhat standardizes PA patent rights across participating nations and allows a the patent office to act as a agent in procuring international patents but doesn't actually offers a "globally" recognized patent in the way that the Berne Convention does for copyright.

    So it looks like the infamous loading screen minigame patent was only registered in Japan and the USA. If I have this right it would not have been a barrier to implementing a loading screen minigame anywhere else (e.g. PAL regions in their entirety)?

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US5718632

  • The cycle I see is aligned with the console generations.

    For the first half of the gen the console proposition is reasonably modern and some people with older PCs will pick up a console instead of a new PC build.

    For the second half of the gen the console proposition is dated and PCs can achieve the same power for a modest price, or exceed that power for a few dollars more. Some people will switch to PC either as an upgrade or when their current console fails.

    Then the cycle continues every 6 or 7 years.

  • More than anything, the problem is apps.

    True, its a real chicken and egg situation. No one what to use a platform without decent app support but no one wants to develop for a platform without any users.

  • That can be a problem for games that skew older too.

    Any games with a companion with have them brainstorming solutions the second you enter a puzzle room. Its exactly what I would be doing if I was in the companion's shoes but as a player it can be frustrating when you haven't been given a chance to even look around.

    glares pointedly at uncharted

  • My lay understanding was that patents were invalidated if prior art could be found before the application date?

    If that was true then no patent Nintendo applied for after palwold demonstrated its use of a technique would hold water. This demonstration would be easy to verify as occurring at the time of release of preview videos, the games release, content patches, etc

    So I must be wrong if they think JP7545191B1 might be the one.