I for one am a lifelong Nintendo customer that has finally decided to boycott them moving forward. Plenty of other companies to support.
Nintendo's lawsuit against Palworld isn't just bad for the industry, it's bad for Nintendo
Submitted 1 month ago by Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I don’t understand. So if I make a video game and my main character is an Italian plumber who wears red and blue, jumps on mushroom people and grows when he eats a mushroom, and Nintendo sues me. Nintendo is wrong? Or are we pretending palworld isn’t “Pokemon with guns” which was literally what people were pushing it as
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Step 1: learn the difference between trademarks and patents. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Oh I’m sorry Lemmy lawyer. I didn’t know we needed a law degree to comment on threads
Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
the problem is, palworld isn’t “pokemon with guns”, they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it’s a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suite against trademark than they did mechanics side.
The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it’s called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC’s anything else is already present in other games.
By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That’s far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.
Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Anyways, it’s very very clear what game palworld took it’s creature design from. So I don’t think the lawsuit is as silly as the Nintendo haters insist
Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 1 month ago
In the US, Atari tried to sue someone who made an Asteroids clone back in 1981 and lost because Meteors, the clone had made some improvements on the idea of Asteroids (color, among other things). This cemented US legal precedent that you can’t sue people for “ripping off” games so long as they make some meaningful change to it and aren’t just making a direct knock-off.
This current case is in Japan, however, where the legal landscape is very different and companies need to be legally aggressive to maintain any rights to their IP from what I understand. I have no idea how that’s going to go down.
morphballganon@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Catch creatures to use” is a broad enough theme that it should be fair use, and has other precedent. For example, it was done in Bomberman Generation. Why didn’t Nintendo sue Konami?
x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
The problem is that the fans of Palworld are actually fans of Pokemon and they will defend it like a Pokemon game.
kinther@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They could have bought the game out and lumped it into their existing games. Alternate dimension Pokémon anyone?
Snowpix@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
And let another IP fall to a large corporation? No thanks.
phx@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Meh. Even small corps often do something well once and then fall to the wayside.Nintendo has been pretty good at recreating their core IP, whether it’s the 3D version of Metroid on GC or open-world Zelda on Switch.
If they’d actually bought out the Palworld IP (assuming that was an available option) that would have meant cash for the devs and a way to work with it in a way that was unique but inclusive to the Pokemon franchise. A lot of people are getting tired of the latter because it has become rather stagnant, but the new mechanics with the official Pokemon characters/stats/etc could have benefitted both
Nintendo doesn’t do that though. They don’t go “wow, this looks cool and there’s real interest. Maybe we could work with the dev and make it an official product. They’ve done most of the work already!” It’s lawsuits all the way
kinther@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They’re going to get sued into oblivion, so that’s one alternative path forward.
Carighan@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.
Ashtear@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yes, there are going to be opinion pieces like this one filling the space for a major news story like this one, but there’s still room for proper journalism right now. I recommend folks check out PC Gamer’s interview with an IP attorney that worked in Tokyo (which was also the second link in this posted article).
Software patents are a thorny topic, and it’s worthwhile for enthusiasts of the industry or those interested in IP law to read up on the concept in general. There’s risk for Nintendo here, and I found Sigmon’s offhand comment about how Nintendo’s ramped up legal hiring to be particularly interesting.
pyrflie@lemm.ee 1 month ago
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Except this isn’t a copyright case. They’re claiming patent infringement.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Even with more info these articles just devolve into
Mario man bad but we all still love Mario? New Zelda in the spring be sure to line up now.
Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I am just curious, do you have a take on how Nintendo’s lawsuit could be legitimate. Even a high-level theory, surely if you are so concerned about speculation and “greedy clickbait”, you have some logical ideas to back this up?
slazer2au@lemmy.world 1 month ago
There is not enough information to have a take on it. That is his point.
The total amount of information out is:
That is literally it.