Microsoft patents drop-in split-screen

By Robert Purchese Published 21 July, 2009

In "squad-based shooter".

Microsoft now owns the patent covering split-screen seamless drop-in and drop-out co-op.

Patent 7,559,834 (spotted by Kotaku) refers to you "dynamically" joining or leaving an "in progress" game, "Without the players having to save and restart."

When you join, the patent adds, you are assigned as a squad member and the "screen is split to present a viewing panel" for you. And when you leave, the AI takes the reins and the screen is "un-split" to become whole again.

The patent refers to a "squad-based shooter" and is adorned with sketches that appear to be from Xbox game Brute Force.

Microsoft has yet to comment.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (48) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • El-Dev #1 3 years ago

    Apparently whatever game they are playing on PS2 in Shaun of The Dead had this feature.

  • quantumsheep #2 3 years ago

    Brute Force wasn't canned, surely?

    I'm sure I played it...

    @El-Dev - it was Timesplitters wasn't it?
    Edited by quantumsheep at 21/07/09 @ 12:12

  • allywidd #3 3 years ago

    Warhawk comes to mind

  • Mawich #4 3 years ago

    It's 'reins' not 'reigns'. A reign is something quite different.

    Also, isn't this an obvious extension of drop-in drop-out multiplayer we've seen for years? How is this patentable?

  • binster #5 3 years ago

    Regardless of the over all quality, didn't Haze have this feature?

  • The-Builder #6 3 years ago

    This Brute Force?

  • FHUTA #7 3 years ago

    yeah - Brute Force wasn't canned (unless there was a secret 360 version in the works) and this feature was already in that game years ago - I think.

    Ah - looking through the link this is just the 2002 patent from when Digital Anvil made Brute Force in the first place. As much as I do have a fondness for the game, if this patent idea in one solitary game has been the cause of other games not being able to use such a handy feature for the last 9 years then that's a crying shame!
    Edited by FHUTA at 21/07/09 @ 12:31

  • mingster #8 3 years ago

    Warrior has joined the battle..

  • Carlo #9 3 years ago

    How the fuck did this get approved with the world of prior art before it?

  • Ranger101 #10 3 years ago

    Furthermore proving why the American patents system and software patenting is backwards and stupid.

  • DrDamn #11 3 years ago

    The patent is actually very specific and restrictive - so much so I doubt any other dev wishing to do something remotely similar couldn't work around it quite easily.

    For example it only applies to squad based shooters and split screen co-op (not online).

    Also seems poorly worded ...

    "When a new player joins an in-progress game, a new squad member is allocated to the new player ... When an existing player leaves the game ... that player's squad member becomes part of the squad being controlled by the remaining player(s)."

    So if a new player joins a new squad member is allocated to the new player. They leave and that squad member goes under control of the remaining player(s). If another new player joins again then another new squad member is allocated. So you can get round it by having a set squad from the start, so the joining player is allocated an existing squad member. Or simply having the rest of the squad AI controlled.

  • Darren #12 3 years ago

    I bought and played Brute Force too for the Xbox, loved it as well despite the middling review scores, so it definitely WASN'T canned.
    Edited by Darren at 21/07/09 @ 13:02

  • SeesThroughAll #13 3 years ago

    Hurrah for software patents!

    /sarcasm

  • Coughthulu #14 3 years ago

    And, quite coincidentally, don't MS have a load of talent they hired a while ago working on a supposed Halo squad based shooter?

    Makes you wonder. :)

    Edit: And yes, Hired Guns was fabulous. Reason I got an Amiga!
    Edited by Coughthulu at 21/07/09 @ 13:11

  • dsmx #15 3 years ago

    How can they patent drop in/out gameplay? Lego star wars has already done that.

  • Darren #16 3 years ago

    @dsmx - The LEGO games don't use split screen though which is what this patent is for. Brute Force was split screen though.

  • sadakos_fury #17 3 years ago

    Haven't you got work?

    Player Two has left the game.

  • dustrat #18 3 years ago

    How can it even be possible to patent this?

  • Rubarack #19 3 years ago

    Hired Guns didn't unsplit the screen though. This is all very shady work, it's not like they're patenting a new idea, just a spin on a very old idea apparently no-one got round to. This ckind of patenting seems designed to prevent not protect innovation and really shouldn't be legal.

  • Matthew_Hornet #20 3 years ago

    Are they serious? There's like a mountain of prior art on this. It's the most obvious "obvious" patent I've ever heard of.

  • jambo74 #21 3 years ago

    Arcade machines have had this for years so what now?

  • Widge #22 3 years ago

    Next up: patent on the word Edge

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #23 3 years ago

    Sorry for the rather calamitous errors there. All my fault, mark me down.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #24 3 years ago

    +1 for Hired Guns love, but didn't that game always have a four-way split screen, so technically the screen could never become "unsplit"...?

    I'd like to see a racing game have a four player split-screen mode. Remember them? Only current gen game I've got that does that is Mario Kart.

  • Arwin #25 3 years ago

    Yeah, Warhawk has this for four players doesn't it?

    Well I guess it's a really, really specific patent then. Still ... f software patents. They may have their uses, but I'd still prefer a world without them. It wouldn't stop people from programming!
    Edited by Arwin at 21/07/09 @ 13:39

  • BabyJesus #26 3 years ago

    Seems like a silly thing to patent, it's too specific to garner any real benefits as someone else pointed out.

    Companies seem to patent anything these days.

    But hey they are millionaires and I'm not, who am I to argue.

  • kangarootoo #27 3 years ago

    So they haven't played Left 4 Dead then?


    @DrDamn

    Good specific points. Easy to design around as you say.

  • kangarootoo #28 3 years ago

    "It wouldn't stop people from programming!"

    It would hinder people programming for a living though, which in turn would likely stop them programming as much as they might like to.

    Patents are just tools. If they are badly used, bad things happen. If they are well used, they defend and promote genuine innovation and allow skilled people to make a stable and profitable living by exercising their talents (which is a good thing, surely).

  • FWB #29 3 years ago

    The most retarded gaming news I've heard in a while.

    I'm going to patent using your eyes and arms to play a game.

  • TheJuriel #30 3 years ago

    Yay, american patenting... They accept anything, and it's up to other people to make a legal trial out of questioning it.

  • WinterSnowblind #31 3 years ago

    @dsmx
    Lego wasn't a tactical shooter, nor split-screen.
    I could very well see this being a feature in Reach.

  • penhalion #32 3 years ago

    The american Patent system needs a serious overhaul. Their patents are totally un-enforcable in any country but America. Any other country will simply laugh them out of court after a very expensive trial.

  • WinterSnowblind #33 3 years ago

    Just read a preview of the new Lego Indiana game and apparantly it does feature a similar mechanic, if the second player moves away from the first now, the screen splits apart so you can both move around freely, and goes back together as you get closer. Interesting.

  • brappbrap #34 3 years ago

    No one seems to have said it yet, but can't you do this in Gears of War?

  • El-Dev #35 3 years ago

    "I see that, as usual, Microsoft is on the forefront of technology."

    Really? From what I remember they were the latest company to enter the console market.

  • FHUTA #36 3 years ago

    FFS - it's a seven year old patent about a specific feature / USP of a game that's already been out.

    Appart from as a catalyst to discuss the sad state of US patent laws there's nothing to discuss and pointing out how it's copying a bunch of games that aren't the same and came out afterwoods is redundant!

  • teabagger #37 3 years ago

    Well great, another patent that is clearly designed for extracting money through the courts rather than a serious attempt at protecting ones IP.

  • Law07 #38 3 years ago

    @Wolf

    So you say having 2 black bars at each side of the screen flawless?

  • davisorle #39 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • smelly #40 3 years ago

    Who'd have thought that microsoft would patent something to do with a SHOOTER of all things?

  • belziah #41 3 years ago

    Ban this sick fucking filth..............

  • TheWretched #42 3 years ago

    Ah... first MS patents Kill.Switch/RE4 and now they patent Warhawk? Interesting^

  • Acornhead! #43 3 years ago

    All this talk about squad-based shooters has made me think about the good old days of Desert storm... If only Denied ops didn't happen :(

    /Sheds a tear...

  • lolife.se #44 3 years ago

    Oh, it's so wrong and backwards a patent like this is even accepted. Bleh..

  • Xerx3s #45 3 years ago

    "Really? From what I remember they were the latest company to enter the console market. "

    Ah, a newbie I presume? I take it that you think that MS's first involvements in gaming are from the xbox? Did you know that MS build the OS for the dreamcast? Did you know that MS was already into gaming before the NES (1983) was released? Did you know that they released designed the MSX in the same year as the NES? The list goes on and on but I take it that I've made my point.

  • Xerx3s #46 3 years ago

    "So you say having 2 black bars at each side of the screen flawless? "

    You mean the bars that fade away because they are nothing but a design choice to announce chapter names? Yeah, considering that no other game thought about that, that was pretty innovative at the time.

  • ForburyLion #47 3 years ago

    With regards to backwards patents - Has anyone patented the idea of single player games yet? If not, I'm going to do it!

  • aine #48 3 years ago

    @Xerx3s - i wouldnt say the MSX was a gaming machine exactly; i think it was designed as a general purpose computer, it just happened to have lots of games released for it. Try playing one of the Nemesis games on it and tell me something with scrolling like that was intended for gaming. The Dreamcast link is a bit tenuous too - it wasnt the DC's own OS, but developers could make games using Windows CE if they wanted (although they had to include the whole OS on the game disc, it wasn't built in) which made development slightly easier, but the performance hit tended to be so great that not many bothered to use it.

    That said, Microsoft were certainly involved with gaming before the xbox - stuff like DirectX comes to mind. they just didn't have a dedicated console for it until then.