Replies: 438 (Who?), Viewed: 57427 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 16th Apr 2021 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 16th Apr 2021 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
Mad Poster
#433 Old 24th May 2021 at 9:42 PM
Quote:
Gamers spent billions more on videogames during the pandemic and companies are looking for more

In 2020, global videogame sales surged 25% to $191.12 billion, according to Lewis Ward, gaming research director at IDC. Those figures include PC games, console hardware and software, and direct mobile-game spending, while excluding in-game ad revenue and aftermarket gaming accessories. Underscoring the COVID-19 effect in that figure, Ward expects sales to grow modestly to $195.29 billion in 2021 and to $195.8 billion in 2022.

Electronic Arts Inc. EA, known for sports games such as “FIFA 21” and “Madden NFL 21” as well as action titles like “Apex Legends,” said it was accelerating its expansion across more platforms and countries along with growth from its recent acquisitions. The company just closed on its $2.4 billion acquisition of Glu Mobile Inc., after finishing off its $1.2 billion acquisition of Codemasters Group Holdings PLC in February.

In the U.S. alone, consumers spent $59.6 billion on gaming in the 12 months ended March 31, a 32% jump from the year-ago period, according to NPD Group analyst Mat Piscatella...


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/g...d=mw_quote_news

I spent my morning on the phone with a garden variety of companies.  None of them felt need to dazzle me with their nonsense.  Every single conversation was pleasant and polite.  No chest-thumping or beating of drums, it was nice. 

Is there a bottom to the pit, that is the question.
Mad Poster
#434 Old 3rd Jun 2021 at 5:32 PM
Quote:
A taxing look at EA's annual report | This Week in Business
In the past 15 years, EA has posted more than $6 billion in pre-tax profits. After taxes, that number… goes up?

EA filed its annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission this week, giving us our yearly peek at the obscene amount of money the company makes from loot boxes.

STAT | $1.63 billion - EA's fiscal 2021 revenue from selling loot boxes for its sports games' Ultimate Team modes, or 29% of all the money it brought in for the year.

We are closing in on one out of every three dollars EA brings in coming from gambling. Or at least, gambling as it's defined in the Netherlands. Or in academic research. Or in the minds of most gamers.



https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...eek-in-business

And people continue to get mad at me when I say TS4 is NOT the bread winner for EA...

Quote:

EA chairman Larry Probst stepping down
Andrew Wilson to take over role

Long-standing chairman of Electronic Arts, Larry Probst, is due to retire from the role this year.

In a recent filing spotted by Seeking Alpha, Probst stated that he's decided to not stand for re-election at the company's annual meeting.

His decision to stand down was "not the result of any disagreement with management of the board".

Probst has been on EA's board of directors since 1991, and has served as chairman since 1994.

Following his departure, the number of people on the board will drop from nine to eight while succession planning takes place.

The board has selected Andrew Wilson to take over the chairman role, while lead independent director Luis Ubiñas will continue in his role for an additional two-year term.


Wilson is going to be chairman and CEO? That's gross nor is it supposed to be that way.
Inventor
#435 Old 4th Jun 2021 at 5:48 PM
J.S. Sterling put this pretty straightforwad (as usual )

*NSFW*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBHkurGE0lc

Fox-Lambert (A)RL
hiatus 'till the life run again in the normal-abnormal way
favorite quote: "When ElaineNualla is posting..I always read..Nutella. I am sorry" by Rosebine
self-claimed "lower-spec simmer"
Mad Poster
#436 Old 4th Jun 2021 at 6:39 PM
How long will it be before Maxis stuffs messaging of 'converting' into TS4?
Test Subject
#437 Old Yesterday at 6:25 AM
Lab Assistant
#438 Old Yesterday at 4:59 PM
Buuh, I wish they had stolen the sims source code.
Lab Assistant
#439 Old Today at 2:29 PM
It would've taken them a year to untangle it if they had've.

Expect poison from standing water. - Walter Blake
Page 18 of 18
Back to top