Boneless
Member
You are talking about overall gameplay feel, that is not what this is about.OK, so stop lying, because Palworld is more ARK than Pokemon.
Last edited:
You are talking about overall gameplay feel, that is not what this is about.OK, so stop lying, because Palworld is more ARK than Pokemon.
I wonder why Nintendo only targets indie companies and defenseless people to sue and not huge companies like Blizzard, which basically has pet battles in the game.
![]()
It was implemented back in 2011, and I can believe that the father of the far Italian doesn't know about this.
But they are probably targeting weak targets that cannot defend themselves
Imagine if id Software had taken patent on making fps games.
You are talking about overall gameplay feel, that is not what this is about.
Because that game did not blindly copy Pokemon, thats why they did not go after them.
Actually this is exactly what it's about. The lawsuit isn't about monster designs. The lawsuit is specifically for certain gameplay mechanics that Nintendo themselves didn't try to patent until after the fact, which is super shitty. If they win a case under that premise it's really dangerous as it sets a bad precedent for the industry.You are talking about overall gameplay feel, that is not what this is about.
ThisThere's a big difference between making monsters that look inspired or based on other designs (Pokemon and dragon quest) and making your monster designs so obviously inspired that it's as if you traced or stole model assets (Palworld and Pokemon).
One is legal (could still be shameless depending on how you look at it) and the other is most definitely illegal if it is discovered tracing / asset theft took place.
I find it highly disingenuous that people try to equate Pokemon/dragon quest to what happened with Palworld/pokemon. These people clearly are not analyzing or arguing in good faith.
Actually this is exactly what it's about. The lawsuit isn't about monster designs. The lawsuit is specifically for certain gameplay mechanics that Nintendo themselves didn't try to patent until after the fact, which is super shitty. If they win a case under that premise it's really dangerous as it sets a bad precedent for the industry.
Thats not me defending Pocketpair. They did poke the bear and I don't blame Nintendo for going after them, but what they are going after them for is the wrong thing because they know it's an easy W when it shouldn't be in that case.
If they were going after them for the monster designs I wouldn't really disagree with that, but Nintendo knows they were altered just enough for that to be a difficult case to win. They could still maybe win that, but they want to scare the shit out of anyone and everyone who comes even remotely close to what they make. They're going to take the path of least resistance and that path I disagree with.
Even Jez has the right take...
Individual game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, note that the litigation is about patents because they don't have a leg to stand on copyright wise; even the patent angle is nonsense because they filed after, and patents should really only be granted for wholly novel ideas/systems.
One can argue anything. I can't support the idea that genre conventions are intellectual property. Imagine if this were the case in music, film, or literature.Well they can argue it could've been the highest selling if it wasn't for Palworld
The entire video game industry is built on iterating on previous works. Throwing a ball is suddenly crossing the line?
Should Ubisoft sue for the use of towers in Zelda?
Oh come on, Palworld is a ripoff through and through. They did everything knowing fully well what they were doing.
Absolutely everyone and their grandma saw the first trailer of Palworld and thought Pokémon ripoff, so its definitely not an iteration of a previous work at all.
They were 100% depending of that to get popular, and while it worked, it of coursed came with legal consequences. Something they already knew, but they also knew that if the game got popular, gamers wouldn't mind the changes.
Imagine if id software took patent on making first person shooters back in the nineties.LoL imagine if several specific gameplay patents becames a thing .... people defending this shit cant see 1 meter in front of their own bias.
Nintendo does have patents on some of the unique stuff in Palworld, like the Pal Sphere and a few other things. But actually winning the case? Probably not that easy. It seems like they're more about using the lawsuit to pressure the devs into changing stuff. Classic big company move and par for the course for Nintendo.The entire video game industry is built on iterating on previous works. Throwing a ball is suddenly crossing the line?
Should Ubisoft sue for the use of towers in Zelda?