next »

[Zack Bell]

Is this illegal? Are there copyrights laws regarding the actual battle systems of most RPG games? This is just something that I was curious about. I would never want to copy a battle system straight up, but maybe modify one of my favorites.

Obviously something as generic as "take turns attacking" can't be copyrighted, but I figured something more specific might be.

And can concepts in general be copyrighted? If not, we need to start implementing more dual techs

[SundownKid]

I don't think it's possible to trademark a certain game design. Since no game designer can claim that their concept is completely original, so it would be impossible to enforce.

[Player 3]

The d20 system is a copyrighted system, if I recall, but can be leased for use. Branching off of it where it will still be just as easy to remember how the formulas work would be the better idea. Try looking through different turn-based RPG walkthroughs and FAQs (like Pocket Monsters of Final Fantasy) and deviate it from there.

[Zack Bell]

Thanks guys, I guess that's all I needed to hear 

[DavidCaruso]

Squeenix has a copyright on ATB, lol, but I don't think they've ever enforced anything with it (not to mention that the ATB system is pretty awful anyway).

[Zack Bell]

LOL yeah, I wouldn't want to use that anyway.

What I was initially interested in was the battle system in the Megaman: Battle Network series. Grid-based random battles with card attacks of some kind.

[eiyukabe]

Squeenix has a copyright on ATB, lol, but I don't think they've ever enforced anything with it (not to mention that the ATB system is pretty awful anyway).

Wait, copyright or patent? Or trademark on the phrase "Active Time Battle"? Copyrighting a combat system doesn't make sense (aside from copyrighting the code that runs the system, of course, but that is implied for any code). Well, neither does patenting something like ATB, but there are dumber patents :/

[DavidCaruso]

Yeah, I meant patent.

Square filed a Japanese patent application related to the ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents (US5390937 and US5649862) were granted based on these applications.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/inpadoc?DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&FT=D&CC=US&NR=5390937A

[Richard Kain]

What I was initially interested in was the battle system in the Megaman: Battle Network series. Grid-based random battles with card attacks of some kind.

The rule systems for games cannot be copyrighted. It "might" be possible to patent them, but patents expire. Also, it is much harder to enforce a specific patent on something as esoteric as game rule systems. The most important thing here is to insure that all of your source code is your own original work. If you rip another companies code, then it would be a lot easier for them to nail you for patent infringement. Also, that would be a dick move on your part.

Generally speaking, you'll probably want to mix things up a little anyway to add your own flavor or improve the system where you might notice shortcomings. So it probably won't end up a direct copy anyway.

[Oddball]

Here is an article which covers the basics of this subject matter.
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/copyright/

[s0]

As long as you don't copy another game's battle system verbatim I don't think you should run into any problems.

[Core Xii]

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only implementations. A game can be an exact clone of another as long as they cannot be confused with one another; That's when trademarks come into play.

I'm not sure how patents apply to game design.

[eiyukabe]

Yeah, I meant patent.

Square filed a Japanese patent application related to the ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents (US5390937 and US5649862) were granted based on these applications.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/inpadoc?DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&FT=D&CC=US&NR=5390937A

Ah, thanks. Still, March 16, 1992, that patent is likely to expire next year if it hasn't already, and besides if you implement a similar system (the user experiences it the same way) using a different approach/different algorithms in code you should not be infringing on their patent. Also, without reading the patent, it is not clear from the excerpt how much or what was patented when it says "related to the ATB system", and the ATB is so unsophisticated as to not be particularly novel or non-obvious (it is highly likely one could find prior art to defend their case if Square took them to court). Very disappointing though how gameplay mechanics can be patented :/.

[baconman]

And can concepts in general be copyrighted? If not, we need to start implementing more dual techs

QFT. I've been wondering if ANY game is every going to bring that cool concept back, along with the unique range-associated special attacks in a game that makes them useful.

Also considering it's immense popularity (especially around here), I'm surprised nobody here's tried to reduplicate the deliberately tactical pacing combat of Demon's Souls yet. That would be so whack.