611
Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
Fuck Nintendo.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
611 points (98.4% liked)
Games
38425 readers
2097 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
This is bullshit. Warner Brothers and Nintendo need to lose, hard.
Also, why the hell does Nintendo think they were first when it comes to the concept? Animals and gliding have been a thing for a long time.
Remember they amended the patent after palworld came out
Palworld did more for the monster-collecting genre in one early access title than Pokémon has in the last decade of AAA titles.
Why does Nintendo deserve these patents when they are going to produce anything meaningful with them and simply weaponize them to squash any real threatening competition?
Pokémon is the highest grossing franchise in the world, and 2nd place isn't even close. I think they can give a little ground to an indie developer who makes games that people are actually interested in playing. The patent bullshit is ridiculous.
Because that's how Nintendo works. They are the Disney of gaming.
I don't care about Palworld, but I do hate Nintendo. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
Nintendo are rightly losing their free pass with gamers.
That is very true, but the Venn Diagram overlap between Gamers^TM^ and ‘Nintendo gamers’ is a rapidly shrinking area.
That's lame af. Flying on my dragon dude between my bases was badass.
So can we please fork v0.5.4?
I wonder how much of this game they can force them to change. I know Steam has a 2 hour limit for returns but at what point does this game become “not the game I bought”?
Pretty much anything so long as Palworld doesn't have 1.- a backbone and 2.- a dictionary at hand. Because it is as simple as finding a picture of any of a long list of animals that can glide, state the words "previous art" and they should be free from this ridiculous demand.
Mechanics that already exist in nature should not be copyrightable. Can you imagine if the first videogame company ever patented "character walking"?
I mean, the game is in early access so if you bought it and are now complaining it changed... It's a you problem, not something that should be refundable.
Nah, not complaining, idly wondering. I made my bed, I’ll sleep in it, I’m just wondering how far a game can go to change a game and still claim it’s the same game.
Theseus' Game
There’s and endless list of games people have complained about changing during early access. It’s a stupid idea. Don’t preorder games.
point does this game become “not the game I bought”?
Anytime you can’t access the version of a game you spent money on
Nintendo is just a garbage lawsuit company that sometimes makes hardware with stupid subscriptions attached.
and none of it matters, cause they have literal legions of fans that will ride their ride, no matter how much it costs, no matter how poorly made it is, no matter how much nintendo spits in their face.
So Nintendo sees no significant economic repercussions from their behavior, and thus has incentive to change.
I was one of those but they were losing me more and more every year... But 3 years ago it became way too much, and I got off the bandwagon. Screw that lol.
I hope they don't make as many sales as they expect... But you may be right, too many people who will buy their crap however expensive and how much they're being mistreated by the company.
I'm not so sure.
All of my friends who are less pissed off at Nintendo than I am are not even considering buying a Switch 2 because Nintendo basically priced themselves out of the market. All of my friends who have a Switch 1 will not be buying the Switch 2, that's pretty significant IMO, but I guess we'll see.
I agree, they definitely priced themselves out of several demographics including casual gamers, parents of young children gamers, and "I guess I'll get a switch as a second device" gamers. These people aren't going to look at a switch that's roughly the same price as the ps5 and xbox and think "yeah let's grab that one".
The wii u showed their demographic of "die hard fans that buy no matter what" is actually really small compared to the rest of their sales. And I think we're going to see a repeat of that.
I hope it does worse than the Wii U tbh, Nintendo needs to be knocked down quite a few pegs. I am quite fed up with them.
I'm a little torn on this.
On the one hand, let's be real - clearly PalWorld takes more than a little "inspiration" on a bunch of different Pokemon IP. The illustrations, modeling, and just visual style overall matches in many ways almost perfectly for many of the creatures. They are like off-brand versions of Pokemon with the exact same eyes, mouth types, etc. in many cases as if they were illustrated by Ken Sugimori himself
.
Additionally, the game involves using handheld ball devices thrown at wild world-roaming creatures you capture after cutting down their health by some amount to increase the catch percentage and different "grade" balls have increased chance for capture.
There is also a nefarious organization competing with you for capturing these wild creatures like Team Rocket.
But on the OTHER hand, the leveling up, breeding, base-building, the various ability tech-trees, item crafting, and just overall engine complexity is VASTLY superior to what appears to now be an almost EMBARRASSINGLY behind set of game design mechanics in the actual Pokemon games... it's sort of a Saints Row vs GTA IV situation here where they were an obvious copy off, but improved in enough ways that ended up being a fun game in itself.
Copying off exact art asset styles is one thing you shouldn't do... but taking Nintendo's gameplay ideas and expanding upon them vastly and being told to remove said mechanics as if they stole code is asinine and sets a bad precedent.
Every time there's been a popular game, there are a thousand copies off them that twist and evolve those mechanics until something else comes along.
Nintendo came along with platformers after Pitfall on Atari. Sonic copied 2D platforming basics from Mario like running to the right and jumping on enemies but changed so much. Final Fantasy copied off Dragon Quest, which itself was a digital idea based off of Dungeons & Dragons. Doom to games like GoldenEye to Halo to Call of Duty to PUBG to Fortnite to APEX Legends...
This feels like taking advantage of grey area in the realm of visual IP similarity to shut down someone making their gameplay design mechanics look antiquated by comparison.
Really embarrassing for Nintendo to be doing this, when clearly what Nintendo should be doing is doing like what Fortnite did when APEX came along and added location / enemy / weapon call outs and just STEALING the mechanics they weren't clever enough to think of on their own and implement better versions in their own games... but clearly they'd just rather have a monopoly and continue lackluster work.
clearly PalWorld takes more than a little “inspiration” on a bunch of different Pokemon IP
There's 1025 Pokemon at this point in time - how the hell are you supposed to create a unique pokemon at this point in time? Even pokemon can't create unique pokemon anymore.
The same way Digimon, Monster Hunter monsters, and every other unique IP looks nothing like Pokemon. Make completely original designs that don’t look like fan art or knock offs of another artist’s specific trademark style.
Earnest question - what trademarks does Nintendo/pokemon have on artistic style?
Any trademarks they need because Nintendo have allegedly been filing new patents mid-lawsuit in order to justify suing palworld.
I'm a little torn on your comment, because om the one hand you are right and on the other these lawsuits have nothing to do with the designs or art style at all.
Look, if the problem is the similar designs then sue for that!
There are over 1,000 pokemon. I think it's a Tolkien situation- where famously, you can't write fantasy without using ingredients that Tolkien created, because if you do, obviously it's from Tolkien, and if you didn't, the reader is asking why not? That kinda deal.
If you set out to create a game involving collecting, or even looking at and cataloguing, a bunch of different fantasy creatures, you're going to have some that are at least a little similar to pokemon. The electibuzz/grizzbolt example you gave is a fantastic one. You're claiming it's stolen, but that there is a cat creature with a single lightning bolt in it's belly. Versus a... monkeything? Covered in them. My point here being, even if they didn't steal (which, I'm sure they did, there are other, better examples) at a certain point you have to accept that with 1,000 pokemon, there's going to be overlap, so you either need to just be up front about the stealing, or you need to spend 5x the amount of development time making sure none of your creatures have overlap.
Personally, Pokemon has been around for more than 25 years. Even if they released a million games a year, they shouldn't get to gatekeep 'all creature-collection simulators that you use balls for and that you can ride like a dragon.' Fuck that. They got infinite money back on their initial investment, and they shouldn't be allowed to just own the ideas. This is the kind of bullshit that makes me (a lifelong pokemon fan) want to never, ever, ever give them money again.
If you set out to create a game involving collecting, or even looking at and cataloguing, a bunch of different fantasy creatures, you’re going to have some that are at least a little similar to pokemon.
If you search for a fox fire witch you'll see different interpretations on that. But somehow Palworld made a fox fire witch extremely close to an art of a fanmade Mega Delphox.
It's not an official pokémon but no way in hell they're didn't just create the pal based on this art, it's just too similar.
But that's not the point of this lawsuit. They patented broad game mechanics and are successfully litigating ownership of those ideas.
If you set out to create a game involving collecting, or even looking at and cataloguing, a bunch of different fantasy creatures, you're going to have some that are at least a little similar to pokemon
I think Cassette Beasts pulled off the Pokemon gameplay format without making anything that Nintendo could try and sue over.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Eh I think patents in video games just ruins the fun for us since Nintendo/game freak/Pokemon whoever can't make a good game if their lives depended on it.
Pokemon straight ripped off mother nature though.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Wait i can't fly on Pals now?
Does that mean that Ark can't fly on dinosaurs?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Not how patents work but whatever, Nintendo has more money so they’re in the right
view more: next ›