Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Patents

Nintendo Patents Online Console Gaming 395

MagicDude writes "Nintendo has patented key console online gaming features. Specifically, it has received patents on things such as player league tables, voice communications and online gaming host services. While the article doesn't address how Nintendo will use these patents, it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Patents Online Console Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • Obviousness? (Score:3, Informative)

    by kmmatthews ( 779425 ) * <krism@mailsnare.net> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:22AM (#10022645) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: US patent that yields it the ownership of key online multi-player gaming facilities, including player league tables, voice communications and online gaming host services.

    Wow, they just patented telephones, VOIP, MMORPGs, etc... Sheesh, shouldn't something like this be a LITTLE obvious?

    Way to go, USPTO!

    • Re:Obviousness? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kid-noodle ( 669957 ) <jono@nan o s h e e p . n et> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:24AM (#10022687) Homepage
      Nope. The patent specifically applies to home consoles, not to anything else.

      Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live, and whatever it is Sony have, but you can't pull them up on trying to patent telephones.
      • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:29AM (#10022753) Homepage Journal

        Even as a Nintendo fanboy, I'd call this questionable given Xbox Live

        It appears you didn't read the article:

        The patent, number 6,769,989, was granted on 3 August this year, but is essentially a continuation of another Nintendo patent, 6,599,194, which was filed in April 1999.

        Which Xbox Live service are you talking about that was around before April 1999?

        • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:39AM (#10022893) Journal
          The patent cited there is for a console with a harddrive, but voice services for games have been around much longer than 1999. I remember playing subspace in 97 with the ability to record and send short clips to other players, and using netmeeting to chat with friends. These days when consoles literally are just desktops, "on a console" is no more innovative than "on the internet".
          • Can we get a "Bizzarro" category for some of these patent stories? Only in such an alternate world would a patent on these things be granted. I believe voice comm was standard in Half-Life multiplayer in 1998, but please feel free to correct me on that one. Everything else is a logical extension of networked gaming since Quake came with TCP/IP support. I don't care if the patent specifies home gaming consoles. What's the difference? Both PCs and console are computers used to play games.

            There needs to be a
            • "... I believe voice comm was standard in Half-Life multiplayer in 1998..."


              I'm not sure about that but there's an old Mac game called Marathon which was released nearly when Doom was released that had the in-game voice communication feature.

              What's that? Like 1992?
        • The patent is for a console add-on device, specifically the mega-flop that was the 64DD.

          If that stuff is integrated into the console, the patent doesn't apply.

          No doubt they filed this to stop third parties from offering their own add-on devices, like lets say, CD-64 rom copying units.

          It's the same strategy they took with NES and SNES. They patented the "keying" mechanisms that authenticated real NES carts, and sent the hordes of lawyers after third parties who tried to release products. Game Doctor, et
      • The Playstation 3 will now now be released as a personal computer with television adaptor, gamepad, and proprietary operating system.
      • Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Insightful)

        Nothing against Nintendo but I think these kinds of patents are rediculous. Should I be allowed to patent connecting a coffee machine to the internet so you can say good morning to your parents through it? It's just an adaption of pre-existing technology, hardly novel.
      • Re:Obviousness? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mikael ( 484 )
        Nope. The patent specifically applies to home consoles, not to anything else.

        Now, that is going to have interesting consequences. As the latest economy laptops now support advanced texture mapping, they could make an good alternative to buying a console system + wide-screen TV.

        It's also hard to believe that Nintendo would attempt to extract royalties from this patent, so it must be an attempt to build up a defensive patent portfolio.
    • Re:Obviousness? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by funkdid ( 780888 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:30AM (#10022772)
      The USPTO issues Patents NOT based on common sense (see above) but based on whether or not a patent for that exists. For example I submitted a patent for "scooting down stairs on your rear end, while making a 'budump' sound" While that is of course completely moronic, I'm sure I'll be issued a patent for it. Did I invent it? NO. But no one else is on record as inventing it so guess what, I OWN IT. Muwhahahahaha

      My hope is that if enough ridiculous patents are issued (I'm reminded of the guy that patented "swinging on a porch swing sideways" and "swinging on a porch swing sideways while making 'tarzan' sounds") they may revamp how the patent process works.

      Oh yeah I also submitted a patent for spinning in an office chair, don't be jealous...

      • Oh yeah I also submitted a patent for spinning in an office chair, don't be jealous...
        Damn, and I was just doing this before I remembered I hadn't gotten my Slash fix this morning yet...
        {sigh} How much do I owe you for the following:

        an unlimited spinning licence

        a million spin licence

        a thousand spin licence

        per spin licencing

        a redistributable billion spin licence?

        -nB

      • Re:Obviousness? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by stratjakt ( 596332 )
        Go ahead and get those silly patents. Then try to use them, and the courts will toss them out.

        It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork. That would be nearly impossible, they'd need to employ top experts in every scientific and industrial discipline.

        No, it's up to your peers to challenge your patents by showing prior art or obviousness to a judge. The problem as I see it, are the financial barriers that keep the small guy out of court, not the USPTO
        • Re:Obviousness? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @10:42AM (#10023691)
          It really isn't the USPTOs job to weed through prior art and do all that investigative legwork.

          No. It is their job, and they're not doing it. The USPTO should be applying at least a tiny level of common sense to these patent applications. Their mandate is to "promote the progress of science", and there's no way a kitchen-sink patent like this could possibly fit that goal. Even IF there were valid "inventions" in there, they'd be separate ideas- not one monstrous conglomeration of "stuff we can converge".

          Patents should be about HOW, not WHAT. Arthur C Clarke didn't deserve a patent on the TV relay satellite, because although he was the first to think of it, he couldn't plan it in specific technical detail. Nintendo has done no better. And need I point out that Nintendo filed their patent [uspto.gov] 5 years ago, but STILL haven't built a machine embodying it (or specific blueprints for that machine).

          I understand that patent examiners follow restrictive rules, so that individually they can argue "Not my job". But those rules are made by the USPTO, which is truely shirking it's public responsibility by being too lazy/corporate-friendly.
    • "Wow, they just patented telephones, VOIP, MMORPGs, etc... Sheesh, shouldn't something like this be a LITTLE obvious?"

      *Sigh* no. They did not patent telephones and VOIP. The context is games here, and patents are VERY context sensisitive.

      BTW, obvious has nothing to do with it. VOIP is not so easy. Consider how little horsepower the N64 had and that most of it went towards the game, and you may see what I mean. Solving the problem is what patents are about, not obviousness. Otherwise I'd patent matt
  • Player? No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:22AM (#10022646) Homepage Journal

    it makes you wonder if this is the first step for Nintendo to become a major player in the online gaming market

    s/player/litigator/g
  • by Spleener12 ( 587422 ) * on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:23AM (#10022661)
    That seems rather interesting, given Nintendo's current online policy [vgcats.com].
  • Great (Score:2, Insightful)

    All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.
    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:43AM (#10022946)
      you know, I was going to use some mod points on this discussion, but I had to take notice to your comment.

      All the patents go to the guys with the weakest online system.

      The Cube has the fewest number of online titles, to be sure. But the system itself? It is at least orders of magnitude better than the XBox, which requires going through XBox Live! to play online (legally speaking of course). The Cube online system is actually the most open system available, the lack of publisher support for it may make it appear that the system itself is weak -- support from publishers in the form of compelling titles is what is really lacking.

      For example: if a large number of XBox developers wanted to provide their own gaming network... guess what -- they can't. XBox Live! only.

      There's actually nothing stopping you or me from developing our own Cube online gaming network and working with publishers to use this network.
  • Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:23AM (#10022667)
    Is this why Microsoft wants to buy Nintendo [cnn.com], I wonder?
  • And I patent...... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by commo1 ( 709770 )
    What next? "System for looking up bank balances & transfering currency on-line" "System for verifying stock levels for multi-location distributor"? This is getting out of hand.
  • by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:24AM (#10022679) Homepage
    Maybe 100 years ago. This is truly getting ridiculous.
  • In another patent (Score:5, Informative)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:24AM (#10022682) Homepage
    Sony submit "Game system with graphics processor" [uspto.gov]. Wow.
  • by MayonakaHa ( 562348 ) <mayonakaha@nOspam.gmail.com> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:26AM (#10022712) Journal
    I read about this the other day on El Reg. As much as I love Nintendo, I have to wonder about what they might do with these patents. Sony and MS might become some major targets for YEPW (yet another patent war). On the flipside, it'd be nice if they finally got some decent online gaming going since they already have the adapters out for 56K and broadband.

    No chance for prior art on this one either from what I can tell I'm afraid. These were amended to previous patents and refer specifically to consoles. It looks like these predate the Dreamcasts online gaming and with the console specifically mentioned they could easily avoide the PC Prior Art argument.

    • It might predate the DC, but it doesn't predate Xband. http://www.gamersgraveyard.com/repository/snes/per ipherals/xband.html
    • True, there's no "prior art" for being console-specific, but this should fail the "obvious to someone skilled in the art" clause. If there are other things out there that use these features but don't happen to be for a console, then it should be obvious to anyone on the online computing industry to apply those to a console.

      The trouble with software patents in general is they are fundamentally different than hardware patents; hardware patents patent an implementation of something, where software patents (an

  • by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:27AM (#10022722)
    Perhaps, they plan on making use of online gaming with these features and they don't want someone else to patent it later, and then come asking for a handout. See also: One-Click Shopping, the hyperlink
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:28AM (#10022747)
    "voice communications"

    I'm sure i remember shouting at my opponents while playing games before.
  • Another Twist (Score:2, Redundant)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 )
    Can't help but wonder if Nintendo might be getting ready to open a can of lawyer sized whoop ass on their good neighbors over at Microsoft! It would seem to me that Xbox Live and Sega's earlier online Dreamcast efforts constitute prior art. IANAL (I finally get to use that!), so I could be wrong.

    Best case scenario, Nintendo is getting ready to enter online gaming in a big way and want to get their ducks in a row. If true, I think this means that Shigero Miyamoto has something ready to go online. You can be
    • IANAL
      How about you use I didn't RTFA also. Had you read the article or even the posts you would have seen that this was filed years ago. Well before the Xbox came to the seen.

      Actually this makes me happy in a wierd way. I 'd much rather see Nintendo get this patent than Microsoft. I have no doubt in my mind that if they could have gotten this pattent they would have used it to beat up on Nintendo, just so they could get of one more player and do what they love to do in markets. Now maybe someone can do it
      • Actually, just missed the 1999 notation (gotta wake up!). Nevertheless, I still can't help but wonder about Sega's online efforts with the Dreamcast, which itself was released in 1999. I don't know if Sega patented anything they developed for online play though. But at the time, they did make a big deal out of Dreamcast being the first console to have online play off the shelf. They never had voice chat though.

        I'm not a huge Nintendo fan, but I would like to see them get into the online fight, just not in
  • Xbox Live (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpiffyMarc ( 590301 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:29AM (#10022757)
    Nintendo patents Xbox Live! Just kidding...

    The article was light on details; if you read the text of the patent (which I have not, to be sure) it's most likely describing a specific implementation, or has key features that the generic technologies being described in the early replies to this thread don't have.

    It's fun to get your panties in a knot about every patent filed by every company, but they are just trying to cover their bases. If they (companies) don't patent everything they possibly can, someone else will turn around and do it. Better to have a patent thrown out for prior art than to risk having to pay massive royalties for something that one of your engineers claims to have invented (and may in fact have.)

    So tell me, who would you rather hold the patent on these things, Microsoft or Nintendo? ;-)
    • Re:Xbox Live (Score:2, Insightful)

      by slashjames ( 789070 )
      Forgot a third choice: Public Domain.
    • Re:Xbox Live (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @11:32AM (#10024350) Homepage
      "So tell me, who would you rather hold the patent on these things, Microsoft or Nintendo?"

      Honestly? MS. Or MS and Sony. Nintendo has a vested interested in keeping software piracy controlled to the point that they didn't want any games online. Sure, the PR was that "no one wanted online gaming", but come on. Everyone wanted online gaming. The truth is Nintendo wanted to take every possible easy avenue away from pirates (what better way to get ISOs on an Xbox than by the network).

      Nintendo doesn't "get it". They haven't gotten it in 20 years. Their controls drive away users and piss off players who'd like to play online.
      • Re:Xbox Live (Score:4, Informative)

        by Chibi Merrow ( 226057 ) <mrmerrow&monkeyinfinity,net> on Friday August 20, 2004 @12:11PM (#10024777) Homepage Journal
        Hmm okay let's see... The most recent statistics I have state the installed base for the PS2 is 70-71 million units and the XBox is 15.5 million units. The last figures I saw was that 7% of the X-Box's userbase was using Live!... Meanwhile, 3% of the PS2's userbase is using online content. (But since the PS2's installed base is 7 times that of the XBox, they're still winning. The amount of time spent playing SOCOM II outpaces XBox Live! usage by itself...)
        Now that means that 1 million people are using X-Box Live and just over two million people are using their PS2 online. These may seem like huge numbers, but they're pathetically small compared to the entirety of the market. So no, 'everyone' does not want Online gaming. The majority of gamers don't give a rat's ass about online gaming for this generation. That may change in the next generation, but since no one knows what the capabilities of everyone's next console is we have no way of knowing how seriously each company is taking it. A few rabid fanboys and early adopters do not market forces make.
  • What waffle. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 )

    League tables: Since Quake 1 (various) Barrysworld
    Voice communication: Counter strike (et al)
    Online game host services: GameSpy, Barrysworld

    I am suprised they haven't patented online console credit card authorization or advertising, or just the Internet.

    What kind of low life scum work at the USPO? (unless this ain't a US patent, I mean, it is Nintendo...) What kind of people have never played an online game, and couldn't see this for what it was?

    'Home Game Video Systems' can mean anything from you mobile
  • Rumors and Poker (Score:2, Interesting)

    by artlu ( 265391 )
    I heard a rumor awhile back about Microsoft purchasing Nintendo, does anyone have any links relating to this?

    Also, their patent is for "league gaming" et al., and it may be possible to apply that methodology to online poker rooms. Is it possible that the patents will cover certain types of online gambling as well as actual games [groupshares.com]?

    • Re:Rumors and Poker (Score:3, Informative)

      by dfj225 ( 587560 )
      What I have heard is that Bill Gates has said on a few occasions that if he were to get in contact with Nintendo he would immediately offer to buy them. I think Nintendo is a company that MS would like to own. In fact I think they made a bid for Nintendo and Sega when they were first creating the Xbox. At this point, it just seems like the offer is always there is Nintendo is willing to take it.
    • Is it possible that the patents will cover certain types of online gambling as well as actual games?

      If it does, then there is plenty of prior art. The slightest expansion of the scope of the patent makes it invalid. If "home video game system with a hard disk drive" == "desktop computer", then there is prior art on every aspect mentioned in the article.

      What's funny is that the USPTO would allow a patent that depends on "home video game system with a hard disk drive" != "desktop computer".

      I guess ev
  • The two patents detail a "home video game system with hard disk drive and Internet access capability"

    Is this the Revolution for the Big N?
  • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:32AM (#10022797) Journal
    As the article states
    All of these components are well-established elements of modern online gaming, and have been available for PCs for some time. Nintendo's patents focus on "home game video systems"
    So how come this patent was awarded? There is no new technology or even new functionality introduced here: it's all existing stuff, done on existing technology... except that Ninento have made a somewhat narrower definition of their platform: "home game video systems". Does that mean that I can patent the same things for "coin-op/web cafe game video systems?".

    This is just another one of those patents on existing and obvious functionality, but in a slightly different environment/platform. Nothing new is invented here; it is only marginally more creative than all those patents for "Obvious and millennia-old activity X.... on the Internet"
  • console/PC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drakyri ( 727902 )
    Since Nintendo's patents are specific to gaming consoles, the PTO probably ignored prior art from computers. However, I think that as consoles get more and more complex, there are increasing similarities to computers ... consoles can be used for web browsing and other PC-like features. The market seems to be moving towards having one big comprehensive system - a box that serves as a computer, TV, gaming console and stereo. What will happen to all of these patents when we get there?
  • 64DD (Score:5, Informative)

    by forensick ( 749817 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:33AM (#10022817)
    Not to be a spoilsport, but this news is a week old and ign and gamespot confirmed a couple days ago that it was just an "add-on" patent for the 64DD so it has nothing to do with future consoles. Unless the Revolution is going to have the 64DD attached to it, but then I would just be confused.
  • "the first filing date, in this case April 1999"

    I am pretty sure the concept of playing games online was well established in 1999, even voice (on lan gaming).

    So how does this even have a chance, other than to say, look, it'll cost you either way.

    Microsoft are filing 3000 patents a Year, that is 8.21 a day, and each one can take MONTHS to work over. How big is the patent office?

    Perhaps the patent office should have a commitee of representative consumers who can veto patents?
    • Microsoft are filing 3000 patents a Year, that is 8.21 a day, and each one can take MONTHS to work over.

      As I understand it, it takes a period of months to come to a judgement on a patent application, but it only takes the USPTO a day or two of actual work for each patent.

      Actually, since they grant ridiculous patents, perhaps they really need a few months to get their knowledge up-to-date.

  • It will be interesting to see what Nintendo have up their sleeves. I'm not quite ready to attribute this action to desperation, since they are the one console manufacturer which has been quite behind on the online gaming front.

    Ah well, time will tell.

  • by xtermin8 ( 719661 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:43AM (#10022957)
    Nintendo began as a company making playing card decks, and protecting its brand ferociously. When it went into electronics, making cheap knockoffs was rampant throughout Asia. Their protectionist strategy backfired in getting a library of games to compete with Sony and MS, but Nintendo always has and will continue to feircely protect its intellectual properties.
  • by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:45AM (#10022966) Homepage
    This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 Disk Drive. I repeat: This is a patent for the Nintendo 64 Disk Drive. This is not a patent on online gaming. This is a patent on one specific product, one component of which happens to be online gaming. That product was a peripheral for the Nintendo 64.

    Here is a link [gamespot.com] I got off the Penny Arcade message boards wherein Nintendo confirms this:
    Nintendo reps contacted by GameSpot confirmed the patent was indeed for the 64DD and not for a new console.
    Of course, it's too late; the slashdot blurb has done its damage and this story will likely be filled with nothing but alternating "OMFG THE REVOLUTION" and "they patented the internet!" comments. But, if you were curious, this is what is actually happening here.
    • by stubear ( 130454 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:56AM (#10023112)
      According to The Register article (I know, they have trouble with facts) patents can be extended in scope from their original filing date so all new additions are patented from that date. From teh article, "Patents can be modified to add new elements, and technology companies frequently amend existing intellectual property with new, related ideas - which then apply from the first filing date, in this case April 1999, long before last year's introduction by Microsoft of Xbox Live, its console-oriented online gaming and information service, and which also offers voice chat facilities."

      Now I question if this is really true or not and if so to what extent it is true. Surely there are mechanisms in place to limit how much one can add and if one can patent something through an addition to the original patent already in the marketplace and still be granted protection from the original patent application date. The Register article was light on these details.
    • Thanks for clarifying that for the jumpy patent bashers. A glimpse of sanity in an otherwise insane, yet surprisingly SNAFU, Slashdot story. Anyone who took a second to RTFP would realize that they weren't patenting 'online console gaming'.. the description is pretty specific reagrding the technology, actually. Slashdot: Hype for Nerds, Exaggeration that Matters
  • Seperate Device (Score:3, Informative)

    by Student_Tech ( 66719 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:48AM (#10022999) Journal
    Skimming the claims on the Patent Application there are lots of references to the communications and mass storage being in a seperate device, claim 3:

    3. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry and said mass storage device are housed in an expansion device and said video game processing system is housed in a separate video game console which is coupled to said expansion device.

    So I don't think XBox would have any problems (its network and hard drive aren't expansion), but the PS2 might be(Network adapter is attached to back of unit, but the hard drive does sit within the PS2, just connected to network adapter)

    But what do I know, I am NAL.
  • Gamesindustry.biz [gamesindustry.biz] has a long write up.

    This patent was about the 64DD add-on device..

    US patent 6,769,989, which was granted on the 3rd of August, refers to a console add-on device which would modify an existing system to include "additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive."

    blah blah blah

    However, despite only being granted this month, the original patent was actually filed back in 1999, and the picture attached to the patent clearly displays a 64DD unit attached to
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:53AM (#10023063)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Or look at it another way, consider it insurance that Microsoft and IBM will never be made irrelevent by Open Source, as soon as it gets too popular, it will be litigated away.

      Quite possibly true with Microsoft, but I would disagree with that statement as applied to IBM (or for that matter any major IT service-oriented company).

      The logic being: most IT service/solution oriented companies make their money from support contracts. IBM, Sun, Novell - they all do it. A proper support contract with something l
  • Patent Details (Score:4, Informative)

    by drphil ( 320469 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:54AM (#10023078)
    Here are the patent abstract and claims from the USPTO site:
    Abstract:
    An existing video game system is modified to include additional communication and storage capability via a modem and hard disk drive. The modification may involve the use of an expansion device coupled to a video game system port. A cable TV tuner is also included in the expansion device to assist in providing a unique picture-in-picture video capability. TV signals are coupled to the expansion device via the RF input from either cable TV or off-air signals. These RF signals are blended with the output signals from the video game system. A user may, for example, watch TV while viewing overlay information from the video game console. A user may receive a TV channel guide downloaded via the Internet, spot a program which the user desires to view and immediately access, via an IR input, the desired channel through the expansion device TV tuner. A user may also watch TV while simultaneously logging onto the Internet. A hard drive permits downloading from the Internet of entire games.

    Claims:
    We claim:

    1. A home video game system for executing video game programs and for generating game play graphics in response to player controller control signals generated by a player operating a player controller for display on a television, said home video game system including a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions, comprising:

    a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port for executing a video game program, and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said main processor, and being responsive to said player controller control signal for generating game play graphics for display on a television;

    communications circuitry, coupled in use to said game processing system and to a user's communications network, for linking said game processing system to the Internet and permitting communication from the player to another party over the Internet;

    a writeable mass storage device coupled in use to said game processing system for receiving information downloaded from the Internet; and

    cryptographic processing circuitry, coupled to said mass storage device, for decrypting at least some of said information downloaded from the Internet.

    2. A home video game system according to claim 1, further including

    audio circuitry coupled to said video game processing system.

    3. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry and said mass storage device are housed in an expansion device and said video game processing system is housed in a separate video game console which is coupled to said expansion device.

    4. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said communications circuitry comprises a modem, ethernet port, or wireless connection circuitry, and further including a controller for controlling said mass storage device and said communications circuitry.

    5. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device comprises a hard disk drive which stores a network browser program.

    6. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device is a flash memory storage device.

    7. A home video game system according to claim 1, wherein said mass storage device stores information downloaded from the Internet.

    8. A home video game system comprising:

    a removable memory insertion port for receiving a removable memory storing video game program instructions,

    a game processing system including a main processor, operatively coupled to receive video game instructions from said removable memory when inserted into the removable memory insertion port and a graphics coprocessor for processing graphics information under control of said m
  • Give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:59AM (#10023154) Journal
    i've been using stuff like voicecomm in games for years. I believe the first thing used was a little utility called battlecomm... which was also in the era of roger wilco, which was a little more popular - probably only becuase of the name.

    And what about voice comm in Half Life? Personally, I think all online multiplayer games that don't have voicecomm are just plain inferior. And I may be striking a chord here with some of the "gamers" who play MMOPRS, but really... what are you doing the whole time? Are you dodging rockets or typing to people on your keyboard? No faimbait intended - whatever game tickles you pink is fine with me. A game that doesn't utilize the latest in technology - a way to save yourself a little carpal tunnel, but still, to each his own.

  • Wait for someone to create an utterly obvious concept. Wait for someone to implement that concept and make it a success. Patent the concept. Sue, license, then rake it in!

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Working...