1 people viewing
Replies: 431 (Who?), Viewed: 55719 times.
Page 18 of 18
Mad Poster
#426 Old 10th Apr 2021 at 3:22 PM Last edited by Gargoyle Cat : 10th Apr 2021 at 5:54 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskie227
I still don't get the patent uproar. Obviously the article is gone so I can only make assumptions. Just because they received a patent doesn't mean it's in use, or assures it ever will be for that matter. Did they identify anywhere that this patented technology is actually in operation on any EA product, and if so, which ones?

There is no uproar; it is just EA doing their sleazy things.  There is no shortage of stories about this, you could look them up yourself.

This 'problem' as it were is not new.

Quote:
Fair Play & Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment

Ensuring play is fair is critical to all of us at EA, and we’ve tried to be as clear as possible that this commitment applies to us just as much as it does to our players. We’ve publicly said before that we do not use any scripting or “Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment” (DDA) or anything similar that would automatically adjust the difficulty of gameplay in FIFA, Madden and NHL Ultimate Team matches.

Our clear statements were recently challenged in a lawsuit that alleged we did, in fact, use DDA in Ultimate Team modes. We’re pleased to share that the plaintiffs have now dismissed their case. We provided them with detailed technical information and access to speak with our engineers, all of which confirmed (again) that there is no DDA or scripting in Ultimate Team modes. This is the right result.

While EA does own a patent for DDA technology, that technology never was in FIFA, Madden or NHL, and never will be. We would not use DDA technology to give players an advantage or disadvantage in online multiplayer modes in any of our games and we absolutely do not have it in FIFA, Madden or NHL.
https://www.ea.com/en-gb/news/fair-...ulty-adjustment

The lawsuit that is mentioned in EA's statement above happened in November of last year. 

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...ulty-adjustment

EA seems to thrive on spending lots of money on these types of patents.  Problems with this go back to 2017.  If anybody thinks EA spends all of this cash on patents which they are never going to use, I've got a bridge for sale.

Screenshot below was taken from the following article...  https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...es-arent-rigged




A bit suspect for something they never use, never mind the fact that FIFA is already a pay to win scam, I mean game.
Screenshots
Mad Poster
#427 Old 10th Apr 2021 at 10:23 PM
EA would NEVER do such things. It's just a single mistake bruh.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.
Mad Poster
#428 Old 11th Apr 2021 at 10:51 AM
Yup, EA's way.  They do these things intentionally, but once they are caught, it is a mistake that they will repeat over and over again.

Not only did Android Wilson show himself for what he is ( a liar) but they also apparently rub elbows with people in the CA court system.  It took me less than 30 minutes to show that EA already does these things, but I guess the court just didn't have time to check things out for themselves in November. 
Inventor
#429 Old 11th Apr 2021 at 5:22 PM
I absolutely LOATHE adaptive difficulty. Believe it or not, there are a ton of games with adaptive difficulty. Resident Evil 4 is infamous for having this feature. If you play really well and have really accurate aim, the game will increase its difficulty without telling you. Conversely, if you die too many times or miss too many shots, the game will become easier. This adaptive difficulty disregards the setting chosen before and once the game reduces or increases your difficulty there's no going back. I believe difficulty should always be a player choice. Some people may choose a difficulty too hard or too easy for them, but that's THEIR choice. Player agency is paramount in good video games.
Mad Poster
#430 Old 11th Apr 2021 at 5:27 PM Last edited by Gargoyle Cat : 11th Apr 2021 at 10:56 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naus Allien
I absolutely LOATHE adaptive difficulty. Believe it or not, there are a ton of games with adaptive difficulty. Resident Evil 4 is infamous for having this feature. If you play really well and have really accurate aim, the game will increase its difficulty without telling you. Conversely, if you die too many times or miss too many shots, the game will become easier. This adaptive difficulty disregards the setting chosen before and once the game reduces or increases your difficulty there's no going back. I believe difficulty should always be a player choice. Some people may choose a difficulty too hard or too easy for them, but that's THEIR choice. Player agency is paramount in good video games.

I have zero doubt that this is in a lot of games. What gets me is EA tried yet again to pull a fast one and was called out on it. Then as of yesterday, I found out they lied about it in court.

EA is beyond even pretending of trying to do anything in good faith at this point.  They speak from their mouths and butts at the same time. This of course is not news, they just continue to confirm this fact.
Scholar
#431 Old Today at 10:56 AM
It still baffles me that methods in software can be patented. It is very unlikely that only one person in the world comes up with a certain solution to deal with a problem. It is like getting a patent for painting walls left handed. The abstractization in software also makes it almost impossible to determine what exactly the patent covers. This always comes down to legal debate where no one is sure who will win beforehand. A very expensive battle.

I mean how can you even risk using a solution that might be kind of similar in a way to a patent without having serious legal backing as a company? I wonder how often big companies just buy a license to prevent potential expensive legal costs. And how many start up companies go out of their way to use a very different solution in their software because they don't have the money or time to be busy with legal battles? I'm convinced that it hinders innovation in software development.

These kind of patents only benefit lawyers imo, not developers. Patents should be about protecting an investment, not monetizing an idea that someone scribbled on a notepad during lunchtime.
Mad Poster
#432 Old Today at 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrak_nl
It still baffles me that methods in software can be patented. It is very unlikely that only one person in the world comes up with a certain solution to deal with a problem. It is like getting a patent for painting walls left handed. The abstractization in software also makes it almost impossible to determine what exactly the patent covers. This always comes down to legal debate where no one is sure who will win beforehand. A very expensive battle.

I mean how can you even risk using a solution that might be kind of similar in a way to a patent without having serious legal backing as a company? I wonder how often big companies just buy a license to prevent potential expensive legal costs. And how many start up companies go out of their way to use a very different solution in their software because they don't have the money or time to be busy with legal battles? I'm convinced that it hinders innovation in software development.

These kind of patents only benefit lawyers imo, not developers. Patents should be about protecting an investment, not monetizing an idea that someone scribbled on a notepad during lunchtime.

To patent any idea isn't cheap, but you may be on to something with the whole lawyer thing.

Here is the list of US patent fees:  https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-...to-fee-schedule

Then there is the lawyer fees. They vary; depends on what a person is trying to patent. Software related patents cost $16,000 and beyond.  https://thervo.com/costs/how-much-does-a-patent-cost
Page 18 of 18
Back to top