Terminal Reality sets out upcoming titles running on licensed in-house engine.
Texas-based studio Terminal Reality has announced the upcoming list of titles set to run off of the firm’s Infernal Engine over the next twelve months.
The list includes:
The tech giant is facing a lawsuit for its alleged infringement of Patent 6,362,822 and Patent 7,061,488, relating to graphical lighting and shadowing methods.
Terminal Reality states that, while developing its own projects such as Nocturne, Bloodrayne, and The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, it built and reiterated the Infernal Engine which it then licensed out to other studios.
Personally, I am against these types of lawsuits. However in Microsoft's case which has managed to make billions off of other people's products by claiming that competitors like Google stole their patent, I think its just medicine. Now let it be known that many companies do this and nothing will stop lawyers from trying to get paid for doing nothing. I think the worst of this was definitely King's lawyers and the whole attempt to patent the word 'candy'.
Replies(2)
"Personally, I am against these types of lawsuits. However in Microsoft's case which has managed to make billions off of other people's products by claiming that competitors like Google stole their patent, I think its just medicine."
Eh? You're against these types of lawsuits? Why?
Secondly, you're okay with this lawsuit because of their past behaviour, despite acknowledging that all companies do it.
Also, have you had sight of of Terminal Reality's arguments in favour of their allegations of patent infringement? To reiterate (as I know the audience here), I'm not defending MS- just want to know why something, which you're against, is okay here, despite you not really knowing what this case is about (I am assuming this is the case).
" Now let it be known that many companies do this and nothing will stop lawyers from trying to get paid for doing nothing."
Lawyers doing nothing? They have to substantiate their claims and put forward an argument in their claim/defence. Let's have an intelligent conversation about this.
Before you lot jump on the "Oh no its Septic defending MS bandwagon", let me spell out my view on this and you're free to latch on to this because the comments below are already coma inducing: I think that the settlement agreement entered into by EA and TR and the rejection of the claims are strong evidence of a case that TR may have, without having sight of the docs.
The EA settlement is the telling piece. There's apparently enough there to keep the suits alive for a bit, but we're talking about lighting tech from early to mid 2000s. So every EA game in recent memory along with every MS game is utilizing this tech? PUBg is also included, which seemed odd.
I don't know. Seems like they're casting a really wide net, but have a bit of substance to get a few $$ in settlement.
BTW, I think Eonjay is just an old Netscape fan.
"I think that the settlement agreement entered into by EA and TR and the rejection of the claims are strong evidence of a case that TR may have, without having sight of the docs."
Agreed. I am against these types of lawsuits because of the King example I listed above where infact they want to get paid for doing nothing. I think Microsoft deserves to have someone come after them as they have targeted all Android phone makers. I think that patent law needs to be looked at because these guys tend to be just bullies against people they think can't afford to fight them. For a perfect example, see the Universal vs Nintendo case over Donkey Kong. Thats right not only do users use patent litigation to make money doing nothing, they are also basic thieves.
How would you be seen as defending MS here, as you are saying that these kinds of lawsuits may be OK, and MS is the one being accused.
Sounds petty to be against it but not in this case.
Microsoft is in the business, like many major IT companies, of buying businesses for their patent controls. They understand patent law better than most.
I'm guessing this will result in a settlement out of court similar to EA in 2015.
My only confusion is why go after Microsoft for PUBG. Seems like they're throwing the kitchen sink in when clearly that would be Player Unknowns item (both IP control and development). This only tells me that this is more about a quick settlement rather than necessarily upholding patent security outside of the precedence that they will look for cash when you use it. Not really a deterrent here so much as "if we feel we can make money off of you, we will."
I also hate these type of cases but understand that they exist to prevent conglomerates from stepping over every small fry out there with no regard to IP. Without them, many IP considerations would make the IP themselves pointless and understood to be free use because of the inability to file opposing use cases. That's much worse for small businesses in every way as it's the one leverage they have in the free market over conglomerates.
I don't think they're going after MS because of PUBG, it's just that PUBG used their tech. MS also made several games using their tech. It shows that MS had access to the tech ahead of time, and didn't just make it up on their own. Patent law can be tricky with software, because if someone makes a technique completely independent of one who ends of filing a patent, and they had no knowledge of said technique from another company then they can actually use their own independently created worth without any recourse.
I didn't say they were going after PUBG because of Microsoft. I said they threw that in there just to attach another game onto it ("throwing everything at them, plus the kitchen sink"), let alone a noteworthy one that really has no bearing, legally, on Microsoft here.
I'm wholly against the idea of software patents. At the very least, you should not be able to patent anything simpler than an entire application. Anyone would understand that driving nails into wood with a blunt instrument is simple and obvious, but only the technically savvy would understand the equivalent obviousness and simplicity of using the boolean operator XOR to stamp one image over another, and then using it again to remove it non-destructively. That concept has been granted a patent, as have other similarly obvious methods of accomplishing something in software. They need to hire competent software engineers at the patent office, and then they need to go review and invalidate all the idiotic patents their employer has granted.
There are certain types of things in software which couldn't be patented. Generally, what would be considered the simplest and most obvious approach to handling something. However, this doesn't typically apply to new techniques which do a specific action....like how to create light or shadow on a texture.
While once said technique is created, it may be the best or most obvious way to do it, a patent typically requires that the end result be a specific action, and it's that action which supports the implementation part of the patent. That kind of thing takes money and resources to create, and the patent system is there to make sure those who actually do such things can be compensated when they want to be.
While there are those who abuse the patent system, the patent system actually does work more than it fails. There just needs to be better laws to prevent the frivolous lawsuits which seem to crop up. Trademark law is actually worse, and should be address as well, because there are those who trade mark things which shouldn't be. Singular words shouldn't be able to be trademarked, except for their use as a company name, product/service.
"make billions off of other people's products by claiming that competitors like Google stole their patent"
Google DID infringe on Microsoft's patents, and they knowingly did it. That's why Microsoft makes money off Android. Microsoft's lawyers didn't just find some loophole. Microsoft's patents and ideas were built into the core foundation of Android, so deep that they can't be fixed without designing a new OS from scratch.
Gotta love how everyone on this site is a patent lawyer, and a video game developer, and a hardware developer, and......
I'm not when they're valid. Companies spend a lot of money or require some ingenious thinking to make up new techniques. They should be compensated for that work. If a company knowingly, and willfully just takes that and does their own thing with the same techniques or technologies, then they should be required to compensate the people who made it up.
I'm sure Terminal Reality sought compensation before filing the lawsuit, or at least put out a cease and desist letter, and MS refused. Other companies have to pay to license this tech through their game engine, so it's not right that that company can just take it for their own for other projects.
Since they mention PUBG does that mean they are going after Epic since PUBG uses Unreal Engine 4
No. It's an external tool to that of Unreal Engine. You can integrate tons of tools if various purposes into UE, but you still need to get rights to use those tools.
To be honest Microsoft likely will fight it. It reeks of a dead company trying to get some easy cash
put yourself in their shoes though, work hard for this tech to then be stolen in a way and no money going to you.... id sue them aswell to get my share of the pie.
everyone boasts about ms having all this money yet they do shit like this im sure they wont miss 1 billion coz you know they already lost that innthe gaming devision already that fans havent seen anything for it.
@The_Jackel
you forgot "allegedly" in that dumpster fire of retribution and hate for Microsoft. They haven't been found to be doing anything wrong ...yet.
If companies or individuals were unable to protect there investment with intellectual property rights, we would not see the advancement of technology, medicine etc that we currently take for granted.
Who knows how much investment was spent in developing the tools protected under those patent rights, why shouldn't they be entitled to profit from their investment.
If MS have infringed then they deserve to be held to account, you better believe that if the roles were reversed, MS would seek to prove infringement.
Troll patent grab!! Someone bought patents (from a dead company) and tried to tie as many companies including MS and Bluehole to the patents so, they could try and grab a quick buck. Nothing to see here.
So? The company that got brought out got compensated. If they didn't, then they could fight this themselves. When a company buys another company, they buy the right to sue another company.
While I do not care for companies that do it, it's actually completely legal, and is just a transfer of who owns the patent. A patent doesn't suddenly become null and void because it's ownership changes hands.
— PC Gaming Enthusiast:
Developed by Terminal Reality, this 1998 racer remains as one of the best monster truck games ever released.
"After disappearing from Steam mid 2012, Ghostbuster: The Video Game has made a casual reappearance on the platform just a few days into 2014. Ghostbusters is a decent game, well worth 8/10 on scale of 1 to 10 by a website that covers videogames on the internet."
This was a really good movie IP game. Felt like a sequel and was a great fan service to us who love the universe. Definitely a game worth checking out if you missed it.
Wounder if the PS3 versions of those games will be as gimped as the PS3 version of Ghost Busters.
I wish third party devs could do a better job with the PS3 then what they are doing. Id sofware and crytek seem to be the only ones trying.
awesome,
can't wait for tfu2 on wii
did you guys know dead rising wii was running off the RE4 engine and looked like strait dookie & and C@ is still running off the Quantum 3 engine and looks heaps better . It not the engine that need work for devs its their craft.
long story short. I doesn't matter what they use it how they use them
I wish Ghostbusters 2 was on that list, the article's
pic got my hopes up....