2 hours in and the game seems really interesting, strong Silent Hill vibes, but..
MY GOD, the performance. What a joke. I know that the game have this dual reality system, but c'mon! All the spaces in the game are small compared to some games released recently, and the graphics are not that next-gen. I know that my graphics card is not that strong, but a RX 580 8gb shouldn't suffer like that lol
I'm getting 100+ fps in some areas, and when the splitscreen thing comes, in some places, I get 11 fps! Even on cutscenes! (1080p on medium/low) It's really that ridiculous. I was thinking about getting a refund, but decided to put my faith on the devs that performance is going to get better. We are really in dire need of titles like this one. Making bad optimized games must be a polish thing, don't know..

Even on more recent gpu the performance takes a huge hit when dual reality strikes in. From 90fps to 45 literally.
But the game is really good so far.

Well, Dear Esther probably invented the term "Walking Sim" and "Dear Esther" has absolutely no puzzles and you could only walk ... you could not even pick things up .. you just walked and looked. This is not such a game. As with almost every new walking sim you actually have to do something but mostly the puzzle and gameplay elements are quite minimal.
In the soul reaver games you could switch realitys but you did not access both realitys at the same time - I guess this is the nw and unique thing here.

They have patented the split screen with two characters in single player
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10500488B2/

I read that this game is only 6 hours long with an abrupt ending... I'll wait until a deep sale as I do like Bloober and their games.

That´s just... weird, considering Dishonored 2 had level with similar concept, much better executed and they didn´t patented anything.

To me it seems like cheap cashgrab.

it is specifically a method which is patented. it does not mean other games can not have single-player split screen games, but they can not use the method they have invented without paying a premium.

esit - due to historical use, I do not think it is possible to get a patent that blanket covers "single-player split screen" games

yes, these game patents are common, but as a saw the news as the thread was still quite fresh I brung it up. I think the source was PC Gamer but given the criticism everytime it's linked or quoted I just posted the patent link.

I don't think they'll object too much if a little dev does the same in a few years. I think it's more about avoiding being copied in the the short term by a AA or AAA studio.

But that´s exactly my concern - it is a standard in a gaming industry that somebody takes someone other´s formula and perfects it.

Have you ever heard about Gauntlet (the original)? Might have, probably not. Have you heard about Diablo though? Sure you did.
Same concept, only taken to perfection by Blizzard at the time.

Now imagine if their creativity (and perfecting something which existed before is also creative process) was constricted by patent - they would end up either not having the money (which would be the case for 90´s Blizzard) or changing their concept dramatically, because they would like to avoid paying the patent.

Sorry, but Dogmaus´s argument about avoiding being copied in the the short term by a AA or AAA studio doesn´t work - they have the money and wouldn't mind paying for it, for them this expense is negligible.

It´s the small and medium-sized developers who would be stifled by it (in another words, their own peers).

yes, but that is not what is happening here. Blizz off course was inspired by Gaunlet (and other games) when making Diablo, but they did not use Gauntlet code or specific procedures. And the same here - anyone cam be inspred by The Medium themsleves, see what works, what they would do to improve it, how they would change it and then they can go an make that game, this is perfetly fine. They just can not use the exact same method. This do not mean they can not make the game they want, they just have to do it in a different way. So they have to innovate, instead of copy. I have no problem with this.

And, no, it is usually the large companies that take short-cuts and license these kind of things. It is not only due to the cost, but also becuase most indie developers tend to build games from scratch and inovate at the same time, i.e. they often do not need it.

(and I have played Gauntelt in the arcades, on a C64, on a ZX Spectrum, as well as Gauntlet II on gods know how many systems.... these threads keep remind me how old I am....)

There are numerous puzzle games that are prior art of this pattern. One input, moving the same actor in different parts of the puzzle world, and each puzzle part having its own local "physics" reaction (say left area has no wall, actor keeps walking, right side of screen has a wall, actor can't walk).

This is a shit pattern. Like pretty much [if not actually] all game and software related patents.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure I've encountered a shoot-em-up where the player's one input controls both ships at once on different part-stages, too.

So are you trying to say they just can´t reuse thier code, but can use the concept?
Because I don´t think that´s how patenting works.

If this would be the case, patents would be meaningless (at least in IT world), because any self-respectable programmer would be able to program the same feature in their given language from scratch.

If that´s how it is, then I don´t see a problem.

"And, no, it is usually the large companies..." - well, you just said the same thing I did :)

No, they can't use the same method. This include the code, but you do not need patent for code, it falls under copyright so can't use that anyway.

The method is the distinct way Bloober Team solved the problem of simultaneous controll two characters in single player split screen environment. This do not mean any other developer cannot make games with simultaneous controll of two characters in single player split screen environment, they just need to do it differenly than how Bloober Team did it.

Indeed, and you cut of the part which did not say the same as you did....