Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit

This lawsuit is so stupid. In my opinion, patenting, copyrighting, or trademarking concepts or mechanics in video games shouldn't be allowed at all. The nemesis system in the Shadow of Mordor games was so cool, but we're never going to see anything like it again. Warner went through the trouble to copyright (or something idk I'm not a lawyer) that system, and then let the series die out.
I'm waiting to see the headlines that any other games with a shooty thing that goes bang is illegal, and the concept of shooting a gun in a video game is going to be owned by either Rockstar/Take Two or the collective mob of Call of Duty developers. If the world is gonna get that stupid, I got my fingers crossed that Bubsy 3D owns the rights to jumping
Edit: Thought about it for 10 more seconds and I have questions. Is it specifically gliding using a creature that Nintendo has a problem with, or is it creature-assisted traversal in general? Can they sue Skyrim since you can ride horses? Palworld made the change so that you need to build a glider to glide around. BOTW and TOTK used gliders. Is Nintendo gonna sue them for that now too? I fucking hate all of this so God damned much
- I'm unconvinced that the Nemesis system would have worked well in too many other settings, but one game patent that had a tangible effect on the industry was Bandai-Namco's patent on loading screen mini games. Remember how you could make the Soul Calibur II characters yell stuff while the match loaded? Funny that we didn't see it again until Street Fighter 6, isn't it? Conveniently after a patent would have expired. We went through an entire era of games with load times that could have benefited from mini games, and by the time the patent expired, we had largely come up with ways to get rid of load screens altogether.
  
  Well saying the nemesis system wouldn’t have worked well in other games is almost assuming that it wouldn’t be changed or evolved to fit other genres. People forget that the real damage some patents/copyrights do is not in their explicit existence, it’s the sphere of influence they exert on related concepts entirely. We weren’t just robbed of the nemesis system, we were robbed of anything even slightly resembling it.
  And I feel like once you understand that you realize it can be adapted to greater things. Spider Man games could have used it. Assassins creed would have been an amazing place for experimentation with those ideas. Could be adapted to Star Wars games, dragons dogma, yakuza, borderlands. And it doesn’t need to be a central focus of these games like it was with the WB games. But even the concept of having enemies that kill you be leveled up in some way is now tainted.
- The tried to patent fucking MOUNTS. Someone get square and blizzard on the sue-train and ream Nintendo a new one.
  
  Who the hell in their right mind would want to buy a switch after seeing this?
- Iirc sony has a patent on an input device having two separate data streams. It seems you write the most general thing you can on patents and patent offices don't care
  
  Amazon has a patent on the "one click purchase" button...
  
  Unfortunately, at least in the US (and from the sound of it, probably Japan), the patent office has the viewpoint of 'patent everything and let the courts sort them out.' The courts, on the other hand, defer to the patent office because 'it's they're job so they must know what they're doing.'
- patenting, copyrighting, or trademarking concepts or mechanics in video games shouldn't be allowed at all
  It's not allowed at all in board games. There's a known issue that someone could completly copy the mechanics of a board game, and as long as they don't copy the art or the exact text of the rulebook there is no legal means to stop it.
  Boardgamers are aware of this, and agree that it is better for development of future games than if someone could own the idea of "rolling a dice", so if knockoffs do come around they tend to quickly get called out and not purchased.
  I don't know how videogames managed to get different rules.
  
  That's probably Richard Garfield's fault for setting precedent with his collectable card game patent.
  
  I don't know how videogames managed to get different rules.
  A lot of people in those offices really don't understand the technical mumbo jumbo that can be summed up as "doing something that already exists, but on a computer"
  Like scanning a document on a printer and immediately sending it as email. That was patented
- It's the using a creature to glide that's the specific problem this time. Not the "using a creature" per se, but "pressing a button to instantly summon a non-player-controlled game-creature to allow for gliding, which is instantly dismissed once the player touches the ground" or something like that in the patent
  
  Which is equally insane, no?
  
  it's even more stupid because that's not how the mount works in Pokémon anyway
  
  Introduce a .5 second delay before dismissing the creature upon touching the ground.

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 mean... Patents in general are bullshit just for things like this.
- Japanese ones are particularly worse. In the US a successful defense is prior art, there is no such defense in Japan.
- There’s a parasitic egg layer that uses leaves some get put into birds and then get shit out? Why isn’t Nintendo suing these insects for using birds to fly around?

Since when is flying on a monster patentable. What a bunch of bullshit. Nintendo has really used up the last of any good will the company had. I will not be giving them a dime from here on out.
- Yeah, Nintendo seems to think they are untouchable. They can do whatever, charge whatever, not even innovate anymore with the Switch 2, and attack fans. I'm done with Nintendo, the only way I'll ever play any of their games is on the high seas.

Wait i can't fly on Pals now?
Does that mean that Ark can't fly on dinosaurs?
- Pretty sure you can still mount and fly on flying pals.
  There are some pals that can be used as gliders though, that is what is being patched out.
  
  TIL. Good. Cause I liked my spaceship dragon

Nintendo ownes the IP of hangliders now.
Nintendo will never see another cent from me for this petty bullshit. My kids will play with other toys.
- Nintendo can sue me any day, I'm out here making RC hang gliders and making tiny 3 second games where the only purpose is to pull out a glider and put it away instantly.
- This is why we should've been pirating from the beginning.
  All the money we give these scumfucks is being used against us.

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 aren't 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.
- hardly call pokemon an AAA title. maybe a solid A+ even before thier enshittification during the SWSH era.

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.
- You see, the patent system is based on a “first to file the paperwork” basis, thereby enabling literal legalized theft. Neoliberalism at work, precisely as designed.
  
  the patent system is based on a “first to file the paperwork” basis
  then blame the patent office, because it shouldn't be so

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.
- 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
  I think Cassette Beasts pulled off the Pokemon gameplay format without making anything that Nintendo could try and sue over.
  
  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.
- Look, if the problem is the similar designs then sue for that!
- 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.
- 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.
- Pokemon straight ripped off mother nature though.
- At a fundamental level, why should copyright exist? Is it helping society here by incentivizing Nintendo? No. Contemporary copyright has it wrong, and I think your starting assumptions ignore that fact.
  
  If I spend millions of my own money and hundreds or thousands of hours of my own time to build something, another company should not just be able to yoink that, put a coat of paint on it, and leave me with nothing to show if theirs just happens to get more popular or be advertised a little better. I don't think the current laws are good but, absent basic income and such for everyone, I see why something should exist.
- 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.
- That VGC site has a pretty good sum up of Palworld: cynical and souless, but nonetheless a pretty fun game to play, and I fully agree. Pretty much every design up to version 0.3 was fully copied from pokemon. The more recent patch that added the big island on the south has more original-looking monster designs, though others are still pretty obvious ripoffs.
  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.
  They did that on Craftopia, too, only it was to catch animals rather than monsters.
  There is also a nefarious organization competing with you for capturing these wild creatures like Team Rocket.
  Not really. There is a criminal syndicate, a bunch of violent hypocritical hippies, a corrupt police and some Borderlands style psychos, none "competing" with you, they just want you dead. I think only the syndicate would "count as team rocket", but they're up for all crimes.
  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.
  Palworld became a target at first because of that visual similarity but, as much as the pals obviously resemble pokemons, they're visually different enough to be considered original and a case on those grounds alone would go nowhere. Which is why Nintendo shifted from IP to Patent bullshit.
- I thought copyright and patent laws were supposed to incentivize innovation, not stifle it.
  Just kidding! They always existed to make rich people richer at the expense of useful idiots.
- they barely changed the overall "palmon" to the orignal pokemon they stole from. kinda hard to defend palworld when they just copy and pasted, and slightly changed the feature.

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.
- Heck yeah.
  Torzu seems to be the logical successor to Yuzu.
  
  I started using it last week. It works well so far although I have only played the new donkey Kong. Take note that Torzu has gone to the dark web, so if you want it you need to go through TOR. This is good because this makes take down near impossible.
- Nice, please share the link with everyone for ultimate spite (and cos I deleted yuzu once by mistake)
  /s
  
  Hum.
  points at sidebar

Fuck you, Nintendo. Release a fucking decent Pokemon game instead of lawyering the competition that's offering a more desirable product
- It's the capitalism way.
  "The company with the best, cheapest product will come out on top.... Unless the shittier company has more money and lawyers and then they sue everyone else into the ground for even attempting to break into the market."

Remember they amended the patent after palworld came out

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.
- I've seen no evidence of this. People are clamoring for the switch 2 and talking about all they want to buy. Fuck Nintendo, but people keep giving them money so they're going to keep doing anti-consumer shit with no sign of any government stopping them. The government isn't going to attack one of the most beloved companies in Japan whose mascot they used at their olympics. A lot of Japanese are event against things like free, labour-of-love randomizers made for old games. People need to stop buying their shit globally if they want anything to happen.
  
  that was the same issues with swsh all the way to arceus, people were repeatadly warned how half-assed the games were, and then complain later on the subs. they still bought it.
- Where is that? Cause Switch 2 pre orders are sold out.
  
  That has happened my whole life, I'm 44. Nintendo supposedly does low first batch numbers so the can get in the news that they sold out. Then scalpers sell the machines for $1500.
- Heard that before, this happens every decade or so

Fuck Nintendo.

I don't care about Palworld, but I do hate Nintendo. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
- I don't care about it either personally, but my wife really enjoys playing the game with friends, and I'm pissed on her behalf. Luckily, she's told me the devs are being really good about making the changes feel good (not like a punishment).

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.
- and pokemon dint even had actual mounts til much later than most consoles.

Can't they just release free DLC with those features worldwide exlcuding Japan where those patents are enforceable ?
- That would be a nice "fuck you," but it's probably not worth the extra effort to them.
  
  The spectacle of it would certainly boost sales for a little bit. How much and whether it covers the development time, who knows.
  I'd do it on principle alone, but I'm a petty bitch.
- Most companies do stuff like that but pocketpair is based in Japan so they can't, they'd be held accountable.
  
  I think everyone understands that nintendo are bad guys in this this situation but pocketpair is just scared. They just say we want to get over it as soon as possible to focus on our game. I understand that small company is scared of old, long timer in this business. But they need to turn it over because if they behave like a sheep they will be eaten by wolf.
  If they could change narrative and simply add. We removed those things and replaced it with this but we don't care what you do with our game. Here is api. Do what the fuck you want.

Copyright and patent laws need to die.
Victims of Stockholm Syndrome always focus on what their abusers provide, but never what they take away.
- Copyright and patent laws need to die.
  This is such an extremely naive thing to say.
  Do you enjoy having every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
  Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
  EDIT: no arguments, just downvotes? Damn, I thought this place was supposed to be better than Reddit...
  
  Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
  Most startups don't have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
  If anything, startups can't develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like "clicking a button does something" (or "glide with a pet") from 30 years ago.
  
  You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.
  But they don't. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.
  
  Patents have an expiry for a reason and the expiry date is pretty generous IMO. It's thought as "Startup x can invent and make money off it but after it the market should take over so further improvements can be made." Imagine if they patented CRISPR Cas9 or the first DNA sequencing method. It would limit science for the entire time of the expiry but not after.
  Claiming invention patent for the pokeballs more than 20 years after the game came out is absurd. They can keep the brand, trademark and IP for their weirdly long time but innovations should become public so the market can continue innovating.
  
  Then go back to reddit? You are daft as fuck defending this crap. Nintendo patenting game mechanics shouldn't be a thing.
  Fuck Nintendo and its supporters.
  
  I don't think patents and copyright "need to die", but they are currently both overly broad and last far too long. Copyright protection especially has no justifiable reason to be even 1/4 as long as it is.
  
  Do we enjoy the premise of capitalism where businesses compete to make the best and cheapest product for the consumer?
  Yes. Yes we did up until a few months ago.
  
  every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
  If it's a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn't just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
  Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
  You just described the dream of most startups. The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired by a big corp so that their idea/product can continue growing, because without acquisition growth is severely limited.

Patents should last 10 years instead of 20, and digital patents even less.
- I can see why patents are so long when you need to build like a billion dollar factory to make a product and mass produce it.
  Digital concepts don't take that much investment and once you have it you don't need to invest in making more, it's just there.
  So yes, digital patents should be a fraction of the time that physical patents should be. Like 2 years instead of 20.
  
  2 years seems like a nightmare for indie developers. Do you want a bunch of AI Chinese cash grabs pushing things out like Hollow Knight 2: Microtransaction Edition or Stardew Valley Romance Sims? Because without IP protection, indie developers will get creamed.
- Digital patents should not exist. Period.
  
  For trivial software features like these, definitely not. I think patents start to make sense in the area of really advanced algorithms, like SAT solvers, ML, and so on. So conditional on patents in general making sense, those kinds of patents seem legit to me.
- Copyright and patent laws should go away entirely.

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
- pokemon licenses to niantac, its solely on pokemon company/nintendo.

Here's hoping Pokemon and Nintendo see disappointing sales. Everytime someone brings up Pokemon, bring up Palworld and how massive of a dick the Pokemon Company/Nintendo was. When people talk about the Switch 2, they bring up all the lawsuits Nintendo brought up on fans, all the YouTubers that dealt with issues because suing people, I'd assume, is Nintendo's main income source at this point..
- Worthy cause but a slim hope. Everyone who's been planning to continue supporting Nintendo, and who I have talked about these issues with, most of them echo the sentiments and agree that Nintendo is bad, but go on to say '...but in the end, my favorite franchises are exclusive to Nintendo so...'. I fear nothing can make a dent in the nostalgia abuser that is Nintendo, not like this.
- I've had a second wind of pokemon since pogo came out, but they killed it with the sale to the Saudis. I'm not supporting Saudi blood ventures
- i doubt it, 10s millions still are pokemon fans, majority are children + they also have the TRADING card game which i heard they are making bank on that too, and then the extra side games like GO, and pocket, only boosts pokemons popularity.
  they dint fall in sales when they enshittified sword and shield and beyond. they rightfully sued some research instituition, because naming some of thier stuff after oncogene is bad press.

I need to start patenting random game mechanics, apparently.
- Might be cool to have AI come up with a bunch of mechanics to patent.

I don't play Palworld, but still hate firms that behaves like this. Not buying Nintendo anymore 🥳 Emulators from here on :)
Patenting common stuff like this is just stupid! Think I read somewhere that Apple patented squares with rounded corners 😂 Hope Nintendo doesn't use rounded corners in any of their in-game menus.
I though patents were ment to protect important original ideas. Stuff with impact.

I wonder how hard it would be for an "unofficial" patch to "somehow" be released that restores the previous functionality

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.

How is it that pokemon has a hold on things like animals allowing flight, but gliders allowing flight isn't under patent?
Like, whoever did gliders first needs to sue Nintendo to change breath of the wild, no gliders allowed anymore.
- Wonder who owns the rights to Fly Boy now?

Glide with a glider in your inventory like Zelda? Is that patented?

Wouldn't a game mechanic/animation like that be equivalent to a stunt in a movie?
Like, imagine if a film director wanted to blow up a car in his movie, but was getting sued by Paramount because Michael Bay already blew up a car in Transformers.

Shit like this is why I haven't bought a Nintendo product in many years.
They might think it's keeping their profits up, but it's hurting their business, as a lot more people than me feel the exact same way.

The last Nintendo console I bought was the Nintendo DS lite. The last Nintendo product I bought was Age of Empires DS The Age of Kings.
As you can probably tell, that was a rather long time ago. Since getting my first TTDS flash card I've more or less exclusively pirated Nintendo things. I'll just continue doing that.
News like this isn't giving me any remorse.
- I've only pirated old stuff, games from my youth that are collectible items now for silly money or a complete crapshoot on whether 30 year old tech has stood the test of time.
  If I had the time to play them I would definitely see my conscience clear on pirating new stuff from them now.
  
  I jailbroke my Switch after they went after Yuzu in March last year. Every time I read about them, it makes pirating new games on it more satisfying. I'm really gonna enjoy Metroid Prime 4 on it!
  
  I pirated breath of the wild years ago and still haven't beaten it.
  I ended up replaying and finishing Wind Waker on Dolphin though.
- Based.
  We need more anti-consumers like yourself. This is how we fight back.

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”?
- 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.
- 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"?
  
  they were pretty much in hotwater for copying pokemons likeness, they probably dint want to have more expensive legal and drawn out fight.
- point does this game become “not the game I bought”?
  Anytime you can’t access the version of a game you spent money on

They could simply have the pals hold on to gliders that the players can use and nothing would change in the gameplay...

That's lame af. Flying on my dragon dude between my bases was badass.
- You can still fly, it's just gliding that got hit by the gaming mafia

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.

So are they next going after unicorns that you capture?
- What about the birds in quackshot? That game is from the 90s.

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.

Adds to the ever growing list of copy-blight examples

.

Not how patents work but whatever, Nintendo has more money so they’re in the right

Cowards, you haven't lost a legal battle yet so what the fuck are you doing
- Legal battles aren't exactly cheap and they can drag on for years. Pocket Pair could end up bankrupt in the meantime from excessive legal costs, while Nintendo can keep that shit going for decades.
  
  Sounds like a system in need of reform.
  Looks like people with money can just use the law to bully those without.
  Copyright and patent laws need to die.

I wonder what their plan was -- step on the toes of the biggest franchise while operating in one of the many countries with broken copyright laws and then hope for the best while raking in early access money based on an idea that legally can't exist? Was it being naive and hoping they could just make a fun and successful game and Pokemon would be a merciful god?
- Nintendo shouldn't be trying to own mechanics. if someone took their core idea and made it so good people who are Pokemon fans are buying it en masse then maybe they should take a hint and make a game that people want. but instead they're out there suing devs for "stealing" their idea of holding onto the feet of creatures with wings to glide? they're clearly unable to take down the game and decided to blindly keep stabbing away at random things trying to bankrupt them with trivial lawsuits. it's pathetic
  
  Does your comment make sense as a response to my comment?
  I'm confused why the devs stuck their head in the jaws of a sue happy monster. I ask, "But what was the point? What did they plan to happen?"
  And you tell me Nintendo shouldn't own mechanics? Like... I know that. I am so used to people misunderstanding me, that I specifically go back and add a huge banner saying "I agree with you." I can call Nintendo assholes, call copyright broken, paint the devs as good but naive, and I still get "listen here, Nintendo is bad. Copyright is broken."
- So, Nintendo can file patents after years of not filing them just to fuck with an Indie company after that company put out a product with game mechanics that "infringe said patents", but not to go after other large gaming companies like Microsoft that also infringe those same patents. Interesting take.
  
  What the hell is wrong with you? Did I say Nintendo ought to be allowed to drive drunk? Or did I express confusion at why someone stepped in front of the speeding drunk? I'm fucking tired of "oh you defended him? What do you love him?" bullshit.
  Sorry I didn't just shake my magic 8 ball and generate a pithy comment like you (probably) did. Here, I'll shake my ball and write what comes up.
  Nintendo is fucking scum. I want a competitor to Pokemon. Copyright laws are broken. Lawyers! LAWYERS!!
- Getting popular to that point was not in their plans. You can't judge their success.
  And yes it can legally exist. See other creature collector games (that are just not that popular yet).
- You're getting down votes from astroturfers, idiots, and kids who can't handle attacks on their precious favoritist little game, but you're right, palworld has zero leg to stand on here and they're lucky their company even still exists with the sheer scale of blatant theft going on. But DAE Nintendo bad hurr hurr?
  
  Can you list out this sheer scale of theft that Nintendo is suing Pocketpair for.

Palworld dev dares Nintendo to sue. Nintendo sues. Palworld bends over. Seems like everyone got what they wanted.
- The first attempt to sue was over copyright. Nintendo figured it had no grounds, so it went for patent bullshit
  
  Palworld picked a fight with a bigger fish. The law doesn’t care about morals.

Serves the Palworld devs right. This is what happens when one blatantly plagiarizes, and I am here for it.
- We are talking about gliding on a mount....a very common game feature...
  
  We are talking about gliding on a mount…a very common game feature…
  "On November 30th, 2024, we released Patch v0.3.11 for Palworld,” it said. “This patch removed the ability to summon Pals by throwing Pal Spheres and instead changed it to a static summon next to the player.
  Well I am talking about the blatant plagiarism, which is what the devs for Palworld did.
- Go touch some grass, both of you.
- Except it doesn't. Nintendo was only able to do this by exploiting Japanese-specific patent law since Palworld is made by a Japanese company. They had no case otherwise.
  
  "They wouldn't have a case if they didn't use local law" is a crazy argument.