• Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Patents and video games huh? We can’t ignore what John Carmack had to say about this:

    The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

    –John Carmack

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      More like he wouldn’t be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

      Thats essentially what both an AI does and what ChatGBT does. Are you gonna defend that to?? Just dont take credit for shit someone else made, who cares if its Nintendo. I don’t want my game sprites altered and then sold as though whoever altered them made them by hand?!

      • Veneroso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        59 minutes ago

        My cock is not inspired after reading this bad take.

        John Carmack is human intelligence and therefore more valuable than artificially generated drivel.

        -edit- I mistook inspecting for inspiring for your name. I’m leaving it.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 minutes ago

          I never said John is an AI. But there are steps Palworld coulda taken to avoid the inevitable. If anything its just sad they did nothing to prevent this. I can see why thousands of people like it a fuckton. But they did nothing to actually avoid this from happening.

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Dont steal my base model that I patented and made entirely by hand and then claim it as your model.

      its that simple. As barbaric as the VRCHAT community can be sometimes, I can wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% a crime to take someone else’s hard work, tweak it, and then pretend that you own it. Pay people their fucking respects/royalties or take a different approach. Toby Fox did it, Every other Pocket Monster-like Series in Japan did it, and so on. if your gonna make a product similar to another, especially fucking Nintendo with how notorious they are for copyright striking, TAKE THE STEPS AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. Don’t churn out a “Pokemon with guns” and then get shocked with your copyright stricken. Thats fucking stupid to me. And its even stupider people are shocked it’d fuckin happen.

      There’s deadass so many routes they could’ve went with, Art-styles they could’ve went with, fucking game mechanics they could’ve went with. And they chose something that 90% of people can agree “looks like Pokémon, smells like Pokémon, functions similar Pokémon”

      I mean for GOD FUCKING SAKES, At least GO WITH DIFFERENT MONSTER IDEAS. We have an ENTIRE WORLD Filled with Cryptids and mystical beasts of all kind, and Palworld STILL CHOSE TO GO for Yokai/Japanese based creatures? Get the fuck outta here with that. Homeboy coulda did American mythos and got away with that, no ones holding a patent against the design of The Flatwoods monster?? Let alone is there a “pokemon” clone of Australian Mythos, so why the fuck are we still trying to do what’s already been done to death and then getting shocked with it falls flat or is criticized.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 hour ago

        You are conflating copyright and patents. Copyright is protection for the expression of an idea, like the art design. This is a patent issue, which is a protection of how something works.

        If somehow I patent a vague mechanic like “a method of selecting weapons with the directions of an analogue stick or mouse, presented as an 8 direction on screen circle.” Then I could sue Red Dead Redemption and Batman Arkham, despite there being no copyright infringement with whatever game I made with that feature.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 minutes ago

          Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models?? not the design of them but the fact they took Nintendo models and tweaked them???

          If im deadass wrong I will 100% shut tf up and delete my rants.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 minutes ago

            Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models??

            No, they’re not. The word “patent” is used in every single article about this repeatedly. Patents are not the same as copyrights.

            A copyright protects a creative work: A work of fiction, a movie, a character.

            A patent protects the method in which the way a thing functions: A machine, a chip, an algorithm, or in Nintendo’s assertion certain vague gameplay concepts.

  • Harvey656@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Pocketpair is a Japanese company too right? That doesn’t bode well, Japan has some shit laws for defending these sorts of lawsuits. I really like palworld, and don’t want it to go away. Fuck Nintendo.

    • Summzashi@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This isn’t about copyright. Is there anybody here that has actually read the article? It’s absolutely insane how everyone just opens their mouths without understanding anything.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It’s just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

    • Ragincloo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Idk about that, maybe indefinite copyrights would be but limited term is entirely fair. Like imagine you spend 5 years and $50M to develop something (random numbers here), then the next day someone just copies it and sells it cheaper since they had no overhead in copying your product. There’s no incentive to create if all it does is put you in debt, so we do need copyrights if we want things. However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since. And seeing as Digimon wasn’t sued it’s not about the monsters, it’s about the balls. But those balls haven’t changed in almost three decades so I don’t think the really have a case to complain

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The problem is that IP laws eventually are lobbied by the big copyright holders into being excessively long. How long did Steamboat Willie really have to be copyrighted for, and has their release into the public domain really affected Disney?

        Eventually after you get back the money you invested, it’s just free money, and people like free money so much they pay lawyers and lobbyists that free money so that they can keep it coming.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.

        First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.

        And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).

        • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          50 years is already excessive, dude or dudette. The north american law originally gave 14 years, plus another 14 years if the creators actively sought after and were approved (most did not even ask, and approval was not guaranteed). This is comparable time to patents, which serve the exact same function, but without the absurd time scales (Imagine if Computers were still a private tech of IBM … those sweet mainframes the size of a room). 28 years, or lets put 30 years fixed at once, is more than sufficient time for making profit for the quasi totality of IPs that would make a profit (and creators can invest the money received to gain more, or have 30 years to think of something else). 30 years ago was 1994, think of everything the Star Wars prequels have sold, now remeber the 1st film was from 1999, would star wars prequels ventures really suffer if they started losing the IP from 2029 onwards ?

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            38 minutes ago

            I still think if copyright laws weren’t so oppressive, 50 years would be fair (And still a huge improvement from the current situation).

            Maybe have it in tiers or something? First 10 years: full copyright - until 30: similar products allowed, but no blatant reproduction - until 50: reproduction allowed as long as it’s not for-profit - post 50: public domain?

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I agree with you almost entirely, but if we’re being honest, there really hasn’t been a lot of innovation in their games since Gen 4, and that was almost 20 years ago. Once they figured out the physical/special split, nothing really changed in the major mechanics. They have a new gimmick mechanic every game, like Z-Moves or Dynamax, but they’re always dropped by the next game. I guess camping/picnics are evolving into a new feature, but that’s about it.

          • Syrc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            57 minutes ago

            If we’re talking PvP, battling has constantly evolved through new abilities, even without gimmicks the way the game is played changed a lot through the years.

            In single player they also changed a lot of stuff since gen 4, although the positive changes were mostly in gen 5/6 and the later ones like wild areas and the switch to “””open world””” were… not as well received.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          50 years… 5 maybe. If you have not earned back your investment by then you are just squatting on it.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think 50 is generally too much, but I think it should depend on categories, so that it is based upon the efforts put into an idea to create and how much it value (like in expected ROI).

          I fear, that is hard to define

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The people spending 5 years to develop something arent the ones that own the rights to the end product. Like I said, copyright exists so rich people can own more. The people that own the rights to pokemon are not game developers, artists, writers, anyone that put actual work into creating the games and other media. Its people that had a lot of money, shareholders and executives. And then they receive the biggest share of the profits off others work and the feedback loop continues.

      • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        4 hours ago

        How about no. Let people create if your only incentive is money fuck you. If someone spent $50 million to develop something the labor has been paid. You will be first to the market and you can make money if your invention isn’t that unique oh well.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Thats a great way to make companies spend 0 on r&d that has longterm benefits and instead focus on squeezing out every penny from current assets.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Want to make something, the people eho want it pay to make it happen, once it’s done and paid for, it belongs to everyone. I rather live in the star citizen dystopia than the Disney vampire dystopia.

            Making an unlimited reproducible resource artificially scarce for 160 years is really fucking evil parasiticism.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            So you tax the fuck out of them and fund invention though schools and unis. But the fact companies won’t is not a sure thing… it just means they will be more pickey.

  • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    18 minutes ago

    It shocks me just the amount of people rallying behind Palworld SOLEY just to “stick it to the big corp”

    At worse its blind rage and ignorance

    edit: watch me get pelted with downvotes.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      57 minutes ago

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      IDGAF about Palworld as a game, personally. I’ve never played it and I don’t plan to. But that doesn’t make Nintendo’s behavior not bullshit, and I still hope the Palworld developers win this battle.

      • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        Thats perhaps the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard and fuels my point if yall only acting like this cus “big gaming industry bad”

        Palword did what thousands of scammers, Cryptoland, and some con artists Vrchat model makers do. Take a model or asset that ISNT THEIRS alter it, then sell it.

        if they win. Companies like ChatGBT and AI’s like it will have free rain to steal whatever shit they want, you think the government will give a shit if its from a indie game? Hell no. Everyone is gonna suffer from this dude.

        Im not boutta live in a world where people, anyone ever, can take my stuff, alter it, then profit from it

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 minutes ago

          Yeah, you did not read any of the articles about this or understand the suit.

          Nintendo is putting this forth as a patent issue, not a copyright issue. I presume this is because even they are smart enough to realize that they would probably lose a copyright challenge. However, the patents they are attempting to claim are clearly bullshit. They’re just doing this as a bludgeon to bully a company they don’t like, most likely in the hopes that the sheer cost of litigation will break them.

          If they were going to propose that some of the monster models from Palworld originated as Pokemon model rips, they could arguably have a leg to stand on. But that’s not what they’re saying. The outcome of this case is not going to have any impact on copyright issues. Rather, the potential result is much more dangerous – it would confirm that a big company can just come in late and retroactively lay claim to large swathes of mechanical concepts that have already widely in use in a particular industry for decades.

          • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 minutes ago

            Wait.

            so this whole situation isnt about Model rips???

            I will respectfully shit the fuck up then and delete my comments. Im compulsive, and judging by what everyone else was saying read all if this as

            A. Fuck nintendo cus they bad

            B. The patent is that they ripped their models.

    • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      55 minutes ago

      I dont care who it is thats suing.

      You cant fuckin make what looks and feels like “pokemon” or any other fucking property and expect to get away with it. Thats PLAGIRISM.

      I DONT CARE IF ITS NINTENDO. If Palworld fucking wins, then that means that anyone else who makes 3d models, or just any kind of content IN GENERAL, can have their shit stolen, tweaked, and resold to millions. If you think that is a valid and okay thing to do to ANYONE, then go fuck yourself.

      Majority of yall are the same people to bite dien on companies like ChatGBT and others a like. but once they start stealing content, patents, and recourses from large companies, then its suddenly ok. The amount of Moral flipflopping this country does is fuckin stupid at best.

      This all comes down to one point and one point only

      “DONT TAKE MY BASE MODEL AND USE IT WITHOUT MY CONSENT.”

      I’ve gone against nintendo on a buncha shit, I still do, this shit ain’t one of em. They have the right to try someone in court if they suspect they are using their models for profit.

      Theres THOUSANDS of avenues they could’ve taken with this game. It coulda made with voxels, coulda been legofied, it coulda been hyper realistic, coulda been created to look like Dark souls, they could’ve AT THE VERY LEAST, play the game of “Im making a Parody so therefore my content is fine.” Theres so many avenues they coulda took to avoid shit like this. Super Mario Logan and SMG64 have been doing this shit for AGES. But nah yall are up and arms and shocked with the slightly altered Pocket Monsters game is hit with some court papers. Make it make sense, deadass.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          27 minutes ago

          Why tf would you even say that, everybody deserve the right to own some shit bruh. I fuck with fangames n all that but stealing assets and profiting from them with no consent is fucked.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        46 minutes ago

        How much is Nintendo paying you to be their mouth piece?

        Have you seen the kind of patents Nintendo are trying to get?

        Here is an example :

        Publication number: 20240286040 Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target object is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground, the player character is automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

        You can check them out for yourself

        patents assigned to the pokemon company

        So calm the fuck down with your chatGPT which is a whole different situation.

        • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 minutes ago

          Bitch I pirate all my nintendo games wtf are you on 😭😭😭

          Their sueing in Patents. Not how similar it looks.

          I dont see this as any different than ChatGBT generating me an essay similar to one that already exists, the only difference is it changed some of it. Thats plagiarism(if not then its just wrong).

          Theres even proof of them using THEIR MODELS and altering them. You cant do that shit without being transparent about it. Hoe hard is that to grasp

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Welp, I had no plans of buying Palworld. I’ve been playing Enshrouded instead. But I’ll be picking it up now. Screw you Nintendo and your anticompetitive ways.

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Fuck Nintendo. I think Palworld is a stupid game that I wouldn’t ever bother to play but Nintendo is pure evil and they NEED to lose. They do not deserve a monopoly on whatever type of genre that is.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    257
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s still identifiably distinct, I really hope Nintendo lose because allowing copyright of a concecpt is dystopian especially in the context of our lengthy time frames for copyright.

    It reminds me of when Apple wanted to patent the idea of rounded corners.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      127
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

      Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

      I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s a little more specific, I think the patent is about:

        • mounting either an air or ground mount
        • when riding the air mount, going close to the ground transforms it into the ground mount and you keep riding it

        But that’s still something multiple games have done in some way I think.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        I am positive prior art could be claimed for most if not all of those. Square Enix could cry afoul of the “mounting creatures” one as well as I’m sure many, many other earlier games on a plethora of platforms.

        You could mount and ride Chocobos in Final Fantasy 2, i.e. the real “2,” the JDM only one on Famicom, which was released in 1988. The aforementioned patent was only filed on Nintendo’s part in 2024.

        They can, to use a technical legal term, get fucked.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Blizzard should be paying attention to this, as it perfectly describes their flying mounts.

          I really hope Nintendo just picked a fight with Blizzard/Microsoft lol

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yes but it’s fucking expensive to invalidate a patent. Possibly in the millions of dollars. That’s how patent trolls succeed - it’s far cheaper to own a bad patent than to fight one.

      • troed@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

        IANAL - but I’ve worked for Big Company and have gone through the patent process a few times. A patent isn’t what’s written in the supporting text and abstract. It’s only the exact thing written out in the claims.

        First claim from the patent the abstract is from:

        1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program causing a computer of an information processing apparatus to provide execution comprising:

          controlling a player character in a virtual space based on a first operation input;

          in association with selecting, based on a selection operation, a boarding object that the player character can board and providing a boarding instruction, causing the player character to board the boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move, wherein the boarding object is selected among a plurality of types of objects that the player character owns;

          in association with providing a second operation input when the player character is in the air, causing the player character to board an air boarding object and bringing the player character into a state where the player character can move in the air; and

          while the player character is aboard the air boarding object, moving the player character, aboard the air boarding object, in the air based on a third operation input.

        Exactly everything described above must be done in that exact same way for there to be an infringement.

        • Petter1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          That seems a bit more easy to get around. It is still crazy to think that you have to check your whole game design against that many patents 😅

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 hours ago

            it’s stupid. I’m convinced that people who oversee software patents don’t even know what’s a computer.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      They are being sued for patent infringement not copyright violations, which is extra weird.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        What’s weird about it? AFAICT, Palworld doesn’t violate Nintendo copyright in any meaningful sense, though it might violate Nintendo’s patent claims.

        That said, this lawsuit seems really late, and I wonder if that’ll factor into the decision at all (i.e. if it was close, the judge/jury might take the lack of action by Nintendo as evidence of them just looking for money).

        • Grangle1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Seems even more odd because to my eyes Nintendo probably had a better (but not super-good) chance of winning on copyright for some of the models used on the Pals than anything patent related. Stuff like riding/transforming mount animals and vehicles are basic exploration gaming functions. If they failed to defend the patent on other prior games that used those mechanics, they don’t really stand a chance here.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s not a copyright suit, it’s a patent suit. So it’s indeed just like the Apple suit, though what patents were infringed upon is still unknown as of now.

  • Rob200@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    You know Nintendo is just weird.

    They file a patent lawsuit against an indie game, just because someone finally got popular. But why don’t thay sue digimon or blue dragon, and while their at it, howtotrain a dragon while their at it.

    This whole thing is just weird.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Well, they waited for Pocketpair to become big enough to give them money, and not too big to risk losing against them.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The really odd but is being unaware of which patents they’re allegedly infringing on

      That should be part of the filing shouldn’t it?

      Also are they going to sue Square Enix for Dragon Quest Monsters while they’re at it?

  • rocci@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’ve never been interested in Palworld, and I certainly don’t intend to play it, but I’ll probably buy it today.

    Because fuck Nintendo.

      • thejoker954@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s just like every other ‘sandbox’ game out there.

        About the only substance is in the early game. Then there isnt much to do but grind out a checklist to collect everything.

        It gets repetitive too fast.

      • callouscomic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It’s clunky and the novelty wears off quickly

        Referring to all Nintendo games.

        • leekleak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Dunno man, it is possible to accept they make good games while still condemning their corporate bs…

          • Grangle1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Basically my stance. Do I like all the anti-competitive crap they pull? Absolutely not. But they do still make and/or publish most of my favorite franchises. This isn’t like, say, Microsoft or Google who bake their evil directly into their products.

          • bassomitron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            Yeah, games like Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart, Luigi’s Mansion, etc. are fun as hell and very polished. I can’t think of a single first-party Nintendo game that’s released riddled with bugs in recent memory, whereas the rest of the industry can’t say the same, excepting Sony’s first-party games.

            • Syrc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I can’t think of a single first-party Nintendo game that’s released riddled with bugs in recent memory

              Literally Pokémon. SwSh, SV and BDSP are all a bug-ridden mess. You will probably find more bugs playing SV for an hour than in all gen 3-6 games together.

              Although yeah, it’s a (huge) anomaly and the rest of the first-party games are extremely polished. It just sucks to be a Pokémon fan in the 2020s.

              • bassomitron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I don’t think Pokemon is first-party since that IP and the dev studios fall under The Pokemon Company, whereas games like Mario and Zelda are developed by studios within Nintendo itself. I could be wrong.

                • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  If they ain’t first party, they’re certainly close enough that you couldn’t tell the difference.

          • callouscomic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            But… they don’t. Their games are old the minute they’re released. Sure they have enough bare minimum charm to wow the masses, but when you truly take a skeptical and honest eye to them compared to many other games, you realize how lazy they are with the copy/paste approach most of the time, inability to add basic common niceties of modern gaming, and generally lacking worlds that feel unfinished.

            If it weren’t for the IP name recognition, most of their games would be panned as meh.

            • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              I maintain a stance that the only reason they’re still around is because of brand recognition. Literally the only reason I could think of anyone liking their slop.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 hours ago

            They make some good games. They also sling out a bunch of crap and repeatedly rerelease games at full price.

          • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 hours ago

            It’s possible to acknowledge that yes but no they don’t make good games, just half-assed rehashed entries in the same 4 tired series they’ve been pumping games out of for decades

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              Hard disagree. I really enjoy a lot of Nintendo’s games, and will be buying Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom right around release. Some favorites:

              • Smash Brothers
              • Mario Kart
              • Zelda - didn’t like BotW and didn’t get TotK, but I loved the Switch ports of Skyward Sword and Link’s Awakening
              • Kirby
              • Mario Party
              • Super Mario 3D World
              • Xenoblade Chronicles

              My kids like Pokemon and my SO like Ring Fit, but I think that series is pretty boring. And here are some I haven’t played, but probably will:

              • Astral Chain
              • Switch Sports
              • Luigi’s Mansion
              • Paper Mario
              • Metroid
              • Pikmin

              That said, I very much don’t like Nintendo as a company, especially its opposition to emulation. But I do like their first party titles, and they’re very polished at launch, unlike many other big studios.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, I was gonna say, Gen IX Pokémon looks like some of the clunkiest, most repetitive shit imaginable.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            God, I wish Nintendo made the Pokemon games, because then they might actually not be ugly, terribly optimized garbage. Nintendo owns a minority share of The Pokemon Company, which is also owned by Game Freak and a company called Creatures. Each company takes care of different aspects of the franchise. Game Freak still does all the game development, and I wish they wouldn’t because they obviously don’t care about the franchise anymore and haven’t for quite a while.

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              The fact they put ILCA on BDSP (and how abysmally that turned out) was the nail in the coffin for me for trusting Pokémon games to be of any quality. SwSh was close, but that told me The Pokémon Company will pump out literally any dogshit they want and people will still buy it.

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Developers put in charge of BDSP. Before Pokémon, their work was all extremely minor support for much bigger studios. So for example, if you’re a big AAA studio and you want to save on precious development time, you might contract out a dozen studios to do busywork, and one of those studios might be ILCA. For example, two people from ILCA are credited in Yakuza 0, but this is as “Casting Cooperation”. Their most major game they’d actually worked on themselves before this was Pokémon Home.

                  So essentially, you’re taking a small company where 95% of their existing work is as a supporting role to do relatively easy work for other major studios, and the other 5% is Pokémon Home, and you’re telling them “Okay, now remake Diamond and Pearl.”

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Yeah, waiting for them to put out a few more updates and maybe I’ll try again: they’ve fixed a good chunk of some stuff recently. It’s still not there as a completed game for what it wants to be, but it’s okay as a cooperative PvE survival/monster collector.

        Haven’t played since they added the island as more levels, so this may be an old opinion: Theres just no real end game past get a cool base. Dungeons are pretty moot at that point, the raid boss just blows up the whole base for some rewards which isn’t worth it unless you have an empty base to summon shit, and the tower bosses and lvl 50 bosses weren’t a bad challenge but that was about it. After you’ve killed those once there’s not much to do. I guess farm them for very specific drops… to be stronger so you can… idk do nothing else….

        But again, I haven’t played since they added the island and higher levels so maybe it’s a bit better in that regard now?

      • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The core game loop is better than any of the pokemon games though.

        I am curious as to why they took so long though. Were they waiting until the hype died down so it didn’t look malicious?

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Same wasn’t even thinking about this game. But now I got to have it. Fuck Nintendo. Never buying a new game from them every again. They should be sued into bankruptcy.

  • littlecolt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I can read the room here. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, and I want to preface this with a big “fuck Nintendo” and particularly their legal team.

    That said, fuck Palworld, too. They are absolutely just straight up copying Nintendo/The Pokemon Company’s designs. It’s blatant. It’s AI bros making money by copying Pokemon designs, plain and simple. Palworld would not have caused the stir it did if not for the blatant “It’s Pokemon with guns!” angle.

    So, while Nintendo can normally go suck the biggest of dicks when they swing around their lawsuit arms, this time I think they fully have every right to go after these guys, I don’t care how much they say they’re gonna fight the big bad mega company “for the fans and for indie devs everywhere” lol man, great statement. Guaranteed to get the base riled up.

    Thank you for reading, you may downvote.

    • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I love how you wrote all this, and are completely missing the mark. Nintendo is filing a lawsuit claiming that the palworld devs violated their patents, not their copyrights.

      Anything palworld ‘copied’ from pokémon is either japanese lore, or from older games. This is not a copyright suit. If a copyright suit were possible, Nintendo would have brought it waaaay earlier. I’m wondering which patents Nintendo has that were supposedly violated.

      I love how there’s this entire discussion here about copyright etc… while that’s not even what this is about.

      • CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I bet Nintendo has a lot of patent violations to choose from. They have a patent on such bangers as, rephrased from legal speech to human speech: “An air mount automatically turning into a ground mount upon landing” Source

        According to Nintendo, if I understand this correctly, they have the sole legal right to make a bird mount that can also sprint on the ground if needed, because that sure was a special idea.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I’m not going to downvote you, but, I disagree. Nintendo might have had a leg to stand on if they tried to say Palworld infringed on their Pokemon intellectual property and/or copyright, especially after the mesh controversy, but they didn’t attack them on that. They’re going after Pocketpair for patent infringement on a so-far undisclosed patent. Probably a game mechanic of some sort. Pokemon did not invent the monster collecting and/or battling genre. Dragon Quest predates it by a good margin.

      I’d like to see the patent they claim to have. In what way might Palworld be infringing upon their patent that another similar game, like say TemTem for instance, is not? I hate the idea that a fun game mechanic can be patented and locked down by one company for up to 20 years.

      Palworld would not have caused the stir it did if not for the blatant “It’s Pokemon with guns!” angle.

      This was 100% a fan reaction to the trailer, and not an official stance by the developers at all. That’s obviously what they were going for, but they stopped long before outright saying it out loud and let the consumer make their own inferences.

      They have every right to go after them, but I really hope they lose this one. Nintendo doesn’t deserve to have a monopoly on fun creature collecting games.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They didn’t copy Pokemon, they created new content that is similar to Pokemon.

      Do you believe it is wrong to create new content that is very similar to existing content that people enjoy?

      Is it wrong for Pocket Pair (Palworld’s creator) to create new content that is similar to existing Pokemon? Is it wrong for GameFreak to create new content that is similar to existing Pokemon? Morally speaking, why are the answers to those questions different?

      • littlecolt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If you can’t see how blatant it is, I don’t know what to tell you. You can be all “it’s just SIMILAR wink wink” all you want. Similar is a fucking understatement.

        • Buttons@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Okay. You don’t like the word “similar” I guess. What word would you use?

          It is certainly not the same.

    • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      They are also making a copycat game “inspired” by hollow knight, obviously doing for the indie devs out there.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I just don’t believe in copyright, IP patents or having fences on human culture.

      So even if they straight up put Pikachu in their game I think they have the moral right to do so. If they can make a good game with Pikachu in it, who is Nintendo to private humanity from that piece of culture?

      My statement is about morality. What’s legal or not is another matter.

      • kyle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I mean…artists should be paid for their work right? Fuck Nintendo, but that same logic could be applied to anyone. I’d be pissed if someone just straight up lifted my designs and resold it.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m not extremely against all of copyright because I believe artists should have some protections (though the law sucks at this), but I also believe that once something becomes a decades-old billion-dollar franchise, non-identical imitation should be fair game. Can you imagine what would happen if companies could simply say that they own whole genres?

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I think you could be right, but it depends on the details Nintendo comes out with. I remember people were saying that they thought certain Palworld monsters had been ripped from the Pokemon games and recolored - if Nintendo can demonstrate that, then that’s a slam dunk for them.

      But if it’s just creature designs and collecting them, then I just don’t think that “a cute monkey with green fur” is a novel enough concept to be defensible against someone else doing something similar.