898
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
So are they next going after unicorns that you capture?
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
898 points (98.0% liked)
Games
38438 readers
2195 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why is there nothing in place to punish Ninendo for doing shit like this?
Patent law is rigged. Legal monopolies shouldn't exist.
Legal monopolies shouldn’t exist.
I agree IP law is messed up, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit.
Having a temporary, legal monopoly on something that requires a lot of R&D and not much production cost (say, a novel or new kind of asphalt) allows the creator to make back their R&D costs before competitors come out with cheaper alternatives. Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
We need shorter durations and more scrutiny on scope. Also, patents should generally not apply to software.
that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
As an incentive structure for corporations and "people" purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you're making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there's no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.
I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can't afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That's still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
Not that I matter being a single person but cya Nintendo I won't be buying anything from you ever again honestly unless its used and from someone on facebook marketplace or the likes of.
This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them
Do not support these companies.
Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan
Atlus should sue Nintendo for stealing the idea of monster collecting and storing them in your PC from Megami Tensei.
Yep down with these mfers
I can get the pokéball, but mounts in games are older than pokémon. That one makes no sense.
Both older and newer, yet they didn't go after the countless games that have mounts.
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
Victims of Stockholm Syndrome always focus on what their abusers provide, but never what they take away.
load more comments
(17 replies)
This is why I'll never feel sorry for Nintendo - karma is long overdue for this company. In fact, I'll download a switch emulator right now just to spite them.
load more comments
(5 replies)
palword wouldve solved some of its problem by not naming it to close to POKEMON names, or gimmicks, or copy verbatim some of its features. they only noticed when things were named exactly like they did in the pokemon consoles.
kinda wierd thing to target, when flying was in WOW for 2 decades before this lawsuit.
-after looking at another post, they also copied the pokemon and changed it very little of the pal-creature, palword needs ot do better to have a stronger case.
I think there is potential that this was intended.
PalWorld was SO on the nose modeled after pokemon plus Breath of the Wild that it couldn't be anything but a stab at Nintendo. And yet, it seems that (I'm not a lawyer) they skirted around ever actually infringing on copyrights. If you want to build a zoo full of creatures, there are only so many ways you can combine things without making a fire dog or ice dragon, and then comparisons can be made. PalWorld has many creatures that I don't recognize as being similar to existing pokemon. Given that Nintendo has not gone after PalWorld for copyright infringement, I'd say that means they don't have a case.
Patents are another angle, and I'm far from a patent lawyer. Have you ever read one? They are full of jargon and what seem to be nonsense words, especially a software patent for a video game. I found an article that describes how Nintendo can use a 'new' patent to attack PalWorld, but near the end he clearly calls out that there is a difference between 'legal' and 'legitimate.' I can't seem to find the actual 'throwing a ball to make a thing happen' new patent, but I'd assume PalWorld doesn't infringe the original patent, or Nintendo would have just used that one. The article author also notes how Nintendo applied for a divisional patent near the end of a window for doing so, which presumably extends the total lifetime of the patent protection. A new divisional patent last year probably means we have 40 years of no 'ball-throwing mechanics.'
I hope that this whole thing is a stunt. PalWorld was commercially successful, and even if they lose and have to modify the game, it will remain successful. I think that there's a possibility that the developer and publisher are fighting against software patents kind of in general and used PalWorld as bait that Nintendo fell for.
If they lose, then there will be a swath of gamers who are at least mildly outraged at software patents. Popular opinion can (occasionally) sway policy.
If they win, then we have another chink in the armor of software patents as a whole. See Google vs Oracle regarding the ability to patent an API.
If we can manage to kill software patents for gameplay mechanics, like throwing balls at things, being able to take off and land seamlessly, or having a recurring enemy taunt you, then we get better games that remix things that worked.
Imagine how terribly different games would be if someone had patented "A action where a user presses a button to swing their weapon, and if that weapon hits an enemy, that enemy takes damage."
Imagine how terribly different games would be if someone had patented “A action where a user presses a button to swing their weapon, and if that weapon hits an enemy, that enemy takes damage.”
I'm sure nintendo will have a patent for using a command for a menu to use an effect that buffs, heals, or harms. That way they can prove they are the ones who invented JRPGs too.
Adds to the ever growing list of copy-blight examples
view more: next ›