Nintendo Wii Fanboy

Well, it's a much BETTER version of Guitar Hero, technically speaking. And it's worth noting that the guys that made Rock Band also made Guitar Hero, they just sold the rights to Activision after it started to get stale. Rock Band has really stepped up to the plate and delivered an experience that nobody else has. Activision is just fumbling to catch up. And Rock Band is really good about treating the customers right by consistently delivering DLC and supporting RB1 DLC in RB2 and such. Of course... not so much for the Wii version.... but that's understandable with no hard drive on the Wii.

Personally, while the guitar aspect can be fun, it was never attractive to me. However, the drums use actual skill and that's what I'm most into. I want to actually use a real musician skill for these games, not some stupid toy guitar.

Well, technically, Harmonix never owned Guitar Hero, they just developed it. If my memory serves me well, I believe Red Octane owned the rights to Guitar Hero as publisher. Activision bought Red Octane, and with it the rights to the Guitar Hero franchise. Activision then decided to go with a different developer (Neversoft) instead of Harmonix. I can't say whether Harmonix decided to make rock band, and then found a publisher (MTV Games), or if MTV Games decided to jump on the now-looking-for-work Harmonix to make Rock Band.

In any case, Harmonix does not and never has owned Guitar Hero -it's Red Octane's baby, and they, still in part, are responsible for it.

I assume that Red Octane has always known better as to get licensing rights from Konami. MTV Games must have forgot that step.

As a Wii owner, I feel like I've been burnt by the folks behind Rock Band, with them forgoing the Wii as a fad and then pushing out a crappy PS2 port, telling us that the extra features got lost in ensuring a quality core experience for Wii owners. At least Activision tried to give us features, and they even gave us a unique guitar. Instead of blaming Nintendo and saying nothing could be done, they at least pretended like they were trying to work things out for us. All I have to say is that I'd rather go with the company that gave us broken mono sound discs, but at least put some effort into making us happy, then the company that obviously doesn't care one way or another what we want. I don't care about innovation. I care about a quality gaming experience. Guitar Hero hasn't failed me there.

Agreed, some things shouldn't be patented I think. If they can sue someone for making a game similar to another game then it seems like every video game could be sued by Pong, or anyone who uses "a" button to jump could be sued by Nintendo, etc.

There were a TON of games that were sued for being like pong. Actually, they were sued by Magnovox for being like the video tennis games on the Odyssey. Even Pong was, but Atari ended up with exclusive rights from Magnovox for video tennis.

Patents are fine. Companies usually still have access to the technology, as long as they are willing to pay the owner for licensing.

You could try and patent the A button, but I doubt that would hold up in court. Keep in mind that patents run out sooner or later, too.

So we should blame Activision for doing it legally?

The patent was vague. Can I go ahead and place a patent on an "video game system with advanced graphics" and then sue Sony, MS, and Ninty when they announce their next gen consoles, claiming that they should have licensed my patent?

Uhhhhhhhh.... dude. Red Octane licensed the patents from Konami, not Activision. Red Octane just wanted to do the legal and fair thing here. I'm glad someone is sueing the souless folks over at MTV games/EA/Harmonix.

dude it not that hard man all they had to do was license those patents just like Red Octane man there nothing wrong with doing stuff legally

Wow, you guys clearly didn't read my second post, or the source article. Konami's patent was for a "musical-rhythm matching game." If you really think that warrants a lawsuit against Harmonix, then I should be able to place a patent on any genre of game, and sue anyone who tries to make something even remotely similar to my idea. If the guy who invented Tetris had patented his "puzzle game with moving pieces", he could have filed a lawsuit against nearly every puzzle game made. Patents are meant to protect your specific products/methods, not extremely vague ideas like this.

I'm not positive, but I actually do think that most "musical-rhythm matching games" pay license fees to Konami.

So then explain to me why Konami didn't complain after GH1, GH2, or GH:80's. They didn't file the lawsuit until *after* Activision licensed the patent.

Honestly buddy there was no reason to read your second post after how much of a moron you proved yourself to be in the first.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16014

Read it and weep, all patents are vague in some sense, but some companies like to give credit where credit is due and others like to profit off someone else's ideas without legal consent.

Here is the link to the patent for your tiny brain to absorb.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6347998.PN.&OS=PN/6347998&RS=PN/6347998

That link simply reinforces what I've already said: the patent(s) weren't licensed until GH3, and Konami never complained about it. They simply feel entitled to a piece of the action now, since Activision licensed it.

Oh, and please tell me how exactly linking to the patent in question and calling me stupid proves your point at all? No one's debating whether or not Konami filed the patent, what's being questioned is whether it was specific enough to warrant a lawsuit against HMX/MTV Games.

red octane licensed those patents not activision lol

Red Octane is owned by Activision, so it's the same thing. Shows how much you actually know about the situation.

If Harmonix wanted to end this, they could just as easily sue Activision.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=mSsLAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4

Damnit, didn't mean this comment.

I see your point sn1per, and I wasn't trying to be confrontational or anything. I don't know why Konami would go after MTV Games, and not Activision, and I don't know what you want me to tell you.

Legally, these companies are supposed to take action to protect their patents. I assumed RedOctane had license for the earlier GH's, and I'm not sure how you know they didn't, but if they didn't then that surely is strange.

Also, the patent that was linked seems to be a little more specific than a "musical-rhythm matching game." I'm fairly certain that Konami has tons of patents for their various music games that encompass most of the genre, though.

@FYIan: Sorry about that, I should have posted my source for saying GH1/2 didn't license Konami's patents. Here it is:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/guitar-freaks/hot-guitar-hero-patents-exposed-315768.php