Microsoft Patents Drop-in Split Screen Co-Op

Nicholas "bapenguin" Puleo July 21st, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Microsoft has just received a patent for an interesting feature in squad based co-op shooters. US Patent #7559834 was filed back in 2002, but only just got approved by the United States Patent Office. From the description, timing and pictures - it appears to be for the 4 player co-op game Brute Force from the original Xbox.

A squad-based shooter video game allows players to dynamically join and leave the game, while that game is in progress, without the players having to save and restart the game. When a new player joins an in-progress game, a new squad member is allocated to the new player and the screen is split to present a viewing panel for the new player that depicts scenes from the perspective of the new squad member. When an existing player leaves the game, the screen is unsplit to remove the viewing panel for the exiting player and that player's squad member becomes part of the squad being controlled by the remaining player(s)

The patent is very specific to drop-in and drop-out play local to a console, and more specifically, it describes a feature we really haven't seen much in co-op play. Dynamic split screen creation, like that in the recent Resident Evil 5 allows a player to join at any time having the game create two sets of player views. I'd think RE5 wouldn't fall under this patent because the game is not a squad based game.

Other details in the patent include the ability to switch between squad members on the fly, AI controlled squad mates when not in player control, and hardware details of how it functions.

There doesn't appear to be any mention of online play in the patent.

Hopefully something like this doesn't have a negative affect on other developers trying to implement a similar feature. As we mentioned earlier, I can only think of one title other than Brute Force that implemented this method of split screen drop-in/drop-out co-op play.

What are your thoughts on algorithmic solutions and gameplay methods being patentable?

Source: Link

Tags: xbox 360 split screen co-op microsoft industry news politics patents

12 Total Reader Comments

Biohzrd451 at 03:28 AM on 7.21.2009

Not sure if it should be patented any sort of co-op needs to be available to all consoles not just one.

HobocidalManiac at 03:43 AM on 7.21.2009

Patents are supposed to be on existing things, not ideas. This seems like more of an idea or concept than something that you can actually patent. Patenting gameplay concepts prevents innovation and stagnates the industry.

Zonf86 at 04:07 AM on 7.21.2009

I'm liking the in game screen shot

aeiah at 04:16 AM on 7.21.2009

patents are designed to protect the creator's method for achieving a result (such as dyson's way of vacuuming) and create an incentive for innovation. software patents tend to actually stifle creativity and innovation though and a lot of companies try and patent the most obvious things to stop competitors from doing something similar. imagine if id software got awarded a patent for "the user viewing what the playable character is seeing from a first person perspective". egh.

surely there's an example of this being prior art. toejam and earl almost did the same thing, but not quite. hopefully microsoft wont go around sueing game companies and restricting co-op features from other companies.

smurphster at 04:52 AM on 7.21.2009

aeiah said pretty much exactly what i was going to say... i hate BS patents. dynamic split screen is nothing revolutionary, it just isn't done very often because the costs to develop it are high and the payoff isn't that spectacular. if M$ starts suing with this patent, i'm going to be mad.

however, keep in mind M$ has changed quite a bit since 2002. they've been adapting to a more open and friendly company (partly thanks to their competition google and apple). they've discovered a lot of their policies and legal BS in the past hasn't gained them anything but a bad rep.

txshurricane at 05:40 AM on 7.21.2009

I think a patent on something like this is exploiting the system. My personal opinion is that the code block itself should be able to be patented, but the concept is still available to anyone to code from scratch.

smurphster at 06:29 AM on 7.21.2009

that's a good way to start at least. i can see patenting algorithms too, not just code. patenting concepts is silly especially when its not a big advancement. the current patent system is flawed in so many ways when applied to technology and especially software.

Zonf86 at 06:36 AM on 7.21.2009

I filed a patent for procreation in 2002... should be coming through any day now .

Then finally I can take over the world - or at least sue everything on the planet.

ong_elvin at 07:40 AM on 7.21.2009

@smurphster You mention Microsoft changing their image since 2002. This patent was filed in 2002. So perhaps this is just a relic they no longer care about.

Also, patents can't cover the idea, only the way it is implemented. Google's patent on its pigeon-holing search (idea) algorithm (implementation) protects it from being used by other sites, but does not stop other sites from developing their own pigeon-holing algorithm. Which is exactly what Yahoo eventually did.

@aeiah idSoftware wasn't the first to create the first game with "the user viewing what the playable character is seeing from a first person perspective." I can't remember the game, but first person views go back as far as the 1970s I think, but definitely long before the two Johns started their careers, using vector graphics in tank arenas. Driving games would probably be included, although I'm not a fan of Driving games so I wouldn't know. But the tank arena games I'm certain of. But there IS a patent on 3d worlds.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/2/ (comic)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/1/2/ (news post)

smurphster at 08:09 AM on 7.21.2009

right, that's what i was getting at.

blakepro at 08:13 AM on 7.21.2009

As others have said, I can only hope that this doesnt result in other companies being afraid of implementing this feature.

If it truly does only cover the way its implemented, then we should be okay, but its a little upsetting to think that companies might get away with stupid lawsuits by creating outrageous patents on concepts or ideas.

bigDinyomouth at 03:53 PM on 7.21.2009

cool brute force 2 just got comfirmed! Im hoping for a better control scheme this time!