So, Nintendo can file parents after years of not filing them just to fuck with an Indie company after that company put out a product with game mechanics that “infringe said parents”, but not to go after other large gaming companies like Microsoft that also infringe those same patents. Interesting take.
Comment on Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
mhague@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I wonder what their plan was – step on the toes of the biggest franchise while operating in one of the many countries with broken copyright laws and then hope for the best while raking in early access money based on an idea that legally can’t exist? Was it being naive and hoping they could just make a fun and successful game and Pokemon would be a merciful god?
atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
mhague@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What the hell is wrong with you? Did I say Nintendo ought to be allowed to drive drunk? Or did I express confusion at why someone stepped in front of the speeding drunk? I’m fucking tired of “oh you defended him? What do you love him?” bullshit.
Sorry I didn’t just shake my magic 8 ball and generate a pithy comment like you (probably) did. Here, I’ll shake my ball and write what comes up.
Nintendo is fucking scum. I want a competitor to Pokemon. Copyright laws are broken. Lawyers! LAWYERS!!
atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Either you haven’t read into what Nintendo is doing and kept up with what’s been going on in the court case, (and perhaps meant to put a /s at the end of your first comment), or you’re blaming Pal world for something Nintendo did because they are big mad that anyone would dare make a game even remotely similar to theirs. I don’t care if you’re defending Nintendo or not.
NINTENDO LITERALLY APPLIED FOR PATENTS FOR GAME MECHANICS used in Palworld after the game was already released to the public. They invented a reason to sue. They directly manufactured it. Your inability to communicate your thoughts on the matter is not my problem.
rdri@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Getting popular to that point was not in their plans. You can’t judge their success.
And yes it can legally exist. See other creature collector games (that are just not that popular yet).
ysjet@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re getting down votes from astroturfers, idiots, and kids who can’t handle attacks on their precious favoritist little game, but you’re right, palworld has zero leg to stand on here and they’re lucky their company even still exists with the sheer scale of blatant theft going on. But DAE Nintendo bad hurr hurr?
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Can you list out this sheer scale of theft that Nintendo is suing Pocketpair for.
ysjet@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sure, it’s located at letmegooglethat.com/?q=Nintendo+lawsuit+against+p…
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Ah, so you can’t? The scale of the theft is so big that you can’t even list them out, is it?
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Nintendo shouldn’t be trying to own mechanics. if someone took their core idea and made it so good people who are Pokemon fans are buying it en masse then maybe they should take a hint and make a game that people want. but instead they’re out there suing devs for “stealing” their idea of holding onto the feet of creatures with wings to glide? they’re clearly unable to take down the game and decided to blindly keep stabbing away at random things trying to bankrupt them with trivial lawsuits. it’s pathetic
mhague@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Does your comment make sense as a response to my comment?
I’m confused why the devs stuck their head in the jaws of a sue happy monster. I ask, “But what was the point? What did they plan to happen?”
And you tell me Nintendo shouldn’t own mechanics? Like… I know that. I am so used to people misunderstanding me, that I specifically go back and add a huge banner saying “I agree with you.” I can call Nintendo assholes, call copyright broken, paint the devs as good but naive, and I still get “listen here, Nintendo is bad. Copyright is broken.”