this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
372 points (98.9% liked)

Games

32411 readers
822 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Reminder that Nintendo is to Japan as Disney is to the USA.

We can only speculate what patents are involved, might be legit might not but it doesn't have to be legit and the actual patent they obtained could be nonsense, they have the power to bend someone over a chair because they felt like it.

Also reminder apple managed to patent a rectangle. what countries allow to be patented is often bullshit at best.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Obligatory fuck Nintendo!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Nintendo files suit against a Pocketpair of deez nuts.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (5 children)

So... Um... If Nintendo patented elements of Pokemon (we don't know what the patents are yet), then... Why is TemTem allowed to live? TemTem is literally one-to-one Pokemon, all but in name.

If, somehow, TemTem isn't in violation of Nintendo's patents, despite just being Pokemon made by someone else, then I'm very curious what Nintendo's patent actually is.

Could it be the capture ball? TemTem uses cards. Palworld uses balls like Pokemon. Did Nintendo patent the idea of capturing creatures inside of balls, specifically? Is that why Nintendo never went after TemTem?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would love to see a Palworld update that changes the balls to cubes. Same animations and effects, same textures, just stretched over a cube.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

And every pal has a badly drawn moustache

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've never heard of TemTem before and plugging it into Google Trends, it looks like it's not even comparable to Palworld. It's still somewhat big, looks like 500,000 copies sold. But still doesn't really compare to what appears to be nearly 20 million Palworld players.
Companies lose rights to protect their IP if they don't protect it themselves, so it may be in their best interest to go after the big competitors and pretend they've never heard of TemTem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

500,000 copies sold is not insignificant. Nintendo fries even the smallest of fish. They'll literally go out of their way to fuck up someone's small hobby project only a niche few even care about. So if Nintendo is turning blind eye to a game that copied them in every way one could possibly copy a Pokemon game, then there's something else going on.

Remember, this is not a copyright case, this is a patent case. Considering Palworld is the only game vaguely similar to Pokemon in some minor ways that I've seen use spheres as a catching tool, I'm just (blindly) guessing it MIGHT have something to do with that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

There is also cassette bests. It just makes it obvious that they fon't care about their ip or it's not out of principle, it's just because someone else made a game that don't suck and people like, which is something they can not do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That could track because Nintendo hasn't gone after Moonstone island either and that uses food / barns to store captured "spirits".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If Temtem is a Pokemon ripoff then Pokemon is a Dragon Quest V ripoff. All these games involve collecting monsters through battle. Can anyone really patent "monster catching RPG?"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are only two things Dragon Quest V and Pokemon have in common; monster taming through battle and they're both turn based RPGs.

Have you played or seen TemTem? It's literally Pokemon in every way, from mechanics, level design, to even how and what kind of moves the Tems can learn.

Nintendo goes after even the smallest infringements, so since they've never gone after TemTem it tells me the patent isn't "monster catching RPG". It's more specific than that, and Palworld somehow infringes on it. As of yet we can only guess what the patent is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I own Temtem. I also love Dragon Quest and its side games. Pokemon was very inspired by those games.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

TemTem is probably just further down on the to-sue list.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure why. TemTem, and a number of smaller projects like it, are basically exact copies of Pokemon and have been around far longer, some with succesfull kickstarter campaigns.

I remember Nintendo being RUTHLESS when people over at GBATemp tried making a smash bros clone for the NDS... For free.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I agree, and want to add that it could also be that PalWorld is a bigger target because it is kinda like a Mickey Mouse horror film: it runs counter to the brand of Pokemon to have a game where you shoot them with heavy weaponry.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Fuck nintendo. I really hope this blows up in their face like their stupid fucking "King Kong is dk" lawsuit. Fucking bullies. The irony that they blatantly stole the designs of pokemon from dragon quest but are butthurt at palworld for pAtEnT vIoLaTiOn is gross. So glad I just pirate their shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wasn't universal the plaintiff in the king kong case?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup, my bad. Still, fuck nintendo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yep.

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. was a 1983 legal case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet. In their complaint, Universal Studios alleged that Nintendo's video game Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong, the plot and characters of which Universal claimed as their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proven that King Kong's plot and characters were in the public domain in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

its wild they're now essentually doing the bullshit Universal did

load more comments
view more: next ›