916
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
916 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59517 readers
2797 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I am typically anti-capitalist and usually root for the underdog. Palworld is a blatant ripoff of Pokemon and those denying it are delusional. Reverse the situation, where Nintendo releases Pokemon after Pocketpair releases Palworld and everyone would be calling it a ripoff.
Yeah, Nintendo's legal department does some shitty stuff, but their likeness was stolen. Also, they are suing for patents, not copyright. The fact that the monsters are caught in a sphere is damning Pocketpair, while other Pokemon copies like Digimon avoid this.
It's just my opinion. I'm often wrong.
Just going to share this for all the palworld blatantly ripped off pokemon people![]()
Cant know if you are for real, most of those designs are barely the same despite being based on the same creatures, against how palworld straight up copied designs with a few changes? Seriously, fuck Nintendo and their shitty and buggy Pokemon games, but the Dragon Quest vs Pokemon designs are not even close to what Pocket Pair, masters of copying games did here.
Most of those are just based on the same real-world animal.
How DARE you also put a wolf in your game!
So it was wrong for Nintendo to do that?
It was wrong for Nintendo to copy someone, but it's not wrong for Pocketpair to copy someone. That's what you are saying?
More like "it's not wrong to take inspiration from something else".
I don't disagree with that, but the line that is drawn between inspiration and imitation is blurred and the courts will probably rule in favor of those with the most money, unfortunately.
Nope, because Nintendo arent suing over copyright (like how the pals look) they are suing over patents, so either gameplay mechanics or under the hood processes. They are complete bullshit and involve things like a patent filed in 2024 for riding a mount in a game.
As others have pointed out patents in Japan expire after 20 years so it cant be anything that was in the original pokemon as that has already termed out.
What about the dynamic of capturing wild monsters from all different biomes in a ball? Isn't that relatively close Pokemon? Game play is different, but the dynamics are similar.
Read my edit, anything patented for the original pokemon is past the point of expiry in Japan (where the suit is filed).
Ah, that makes sense. I wasn't aware of the 20 year limit.
I think Nintendo's lawyers must have determined it's inspiration in this case though. Like you said, they're suing for patent infringement and not copyright, so they must think a legal challenge on their creature designs is a lost cause.
That's a good point. They want to hurt them however they can.
You're so close and yet: Whoosh
You can either explain your position, or you can be a pretentious ass. Like I said before, I'm often wrong. I'm willing to hear your point, but you refuse to make it and act pompous.
Well they can actually be/do both.
Just sayin.
It's not wrong for either to draw inspiration from the other. It's the hypocrisy that's wrong.
It might be a ripoff, but my question to you is should that be illegal? The entirety of humanity is monkey see monkey do iteration on our previous ideas. It's a dubious thing to litigate.
To add to that, no fan of either is going to confuse one for the other, so where's the issue?
Again, this isn't a copyright lawsuit. Making a game with monsters that look similar to theirs is not what the lawsuit is about. It's about patents. Likely design patents like I mentioned before. If I made a country song with Eminem's lyrics, of course you wouldn't confuse it with Slim's music, but I would need his permission first.
Marshall has copyright on his lyrics, you just said yourself patents and copyright are different things.
Sufficiently different rip-offs that don't confuse consumers as being the original should be legal. They already are as far as copyright is concerned.
Many design patents should never have been registered, and should lose when defended in court. Design trademarks are a third similar issue.
Palworld is a rip off of Ark and BotW with Pokemon aesthetics. It opened early access the same year sword and shield came out. Before that Pokemon was not a big 3D open world type game. It also doesn’t include the survival/base building or FPS features in Pokemon. While palworld may be a derivative game, it is for sure different enough.
There is stuff like the palbox or the pokeball things that I could see them be dinged for though.
I wouldn't argue that the game play is different.
… have you played either game? Cuz… how would you not argue that? One is a turn based RPG the other is an FPS.
I just said that I would not argue that. That means that I think the game play is different.
Ah, misunderstood thanks.