Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Does Nintendo have a possible case? Yes, but this does not mean they have a strong case. It is possible Nintendo may sue on some game mechanic points like the capture balls (not saying this is a strong point to sue because I have not reviewed trademarks or copyrights, this is just an example). If this happens it does not necessarily mean PalWorlds would be shut down or that they will even be liable to pay any substantial claim. If they win any claims against certain mechanics or artwork they might be ordered to make changes. I think there is enough of a difference in PalWorlds and Pokemon that the game is not in any jeopardy of getting shut down.
However going to court is a fickle beast. If you go to certain judges they will have an extreme bias on the case, against a certain lawyer or type of legal claim or defense. There are plenty of great claims that get dismissed because of moody or biased judges and plenty of great defenses dismissed because of moody or biased judges.
So at the end of the day what I think or what you think or even a seasoned attorney thinks might mean next to nothing. Thankfully however a good attorney could appeal a decision if the judge makes a bad call.
The former lawyer isn't giving a professional opinion. He was asked the morning the article was put out and almost certainly didn't look into it deeply, because he wouldn't be getting paid to do so, because he was no longer part of Nintendo's legal team.
Being a lawyer doesn't make one omniscient in regards to legal matters, research still needs to be done and as I said I sincerely doubt he did any research before giving his opinion.
Because the game industry is already full of ripoffs and failed lawsuits. Just look at all the MOBA games, gacha games, china blatant ripoffs, the hundreds of military shooters with similar looking assets and what not.
You can't definitively win a case against someone for being able to draw the same circle or triangle as you, you can't copyright the shape of a sheep nor the color of grass.
UE5 game? Run on the switch?
Ha, ha-ha I say.
even UE4 games did switch into UE5
Starship Troopers for example
and Nintendont didnt sue already... there is probably some reason why is he former one.. and why Nintendo didnt sue already and let this game be released
think about it for while... and then ask yourself "why?"
When they release another 2 iterations of abomination pokemon versions it would be time for their new handheld release i guess
Unless they just want to be...jerks and file to drain money i don't see why they would sue.
If anything, Studio Wildcard (Ark Creators) has a significantly better chance. This game is ARK with a hint of Pokemon.
The reason people think that is due to past events.
A company doesn't have to win, they just have to outlast.
They file a lawsuit against you, it gets dismissed, they file it immediately again. And again. And again. And again.
They keep it up until you run out of money to afford the legal fees.
And then they automatically win.
Courts? Judges? Who needs them? A company can win a case without any of that.
------
Now, will Nintendo sue them? Nah.
As has been brought out, there are countless monster-raising games out there, and none of them have been touched by Nintendo.
Now, if you were ask about the owners of ARK suing...
But, I doubt they would bother, either.
(They might need to be mindful about Epic, though. Judging by the EULA mentioning a lot of stuff related to Epic. Probably nothing to worry about, but still...)
this will not work :)
edit: ppl are comparing this with Ark because those are only two openworld survival craft games with breeding system
Honestly i'm a bit skeptical that there's nothing but i've heard in some areas that there are some ideas of select things that are only a crime if the victim complains that other's can't on their behalf.
Like a neighbor complaining a husband and wife both light daily fighting with each other and then taking one or both to jail.
Originally someone else could report it and send them both. Then the fighting wife would become outraged and start fighting the police or the neighbors to send them back.
So they changed it so for light incidents, you wanted 'the victim' to be the one to report it. It was a crime or offence if they did it.
Not a lawyer but i wonder if maybe it's a bit like that for Nintendo. We've seen them have a hawklike eye and the pokemon mod being immediately shut down while their words are mute on Palworld does seem either selective silence, tactical silence.
Or maybe they are curious in what made it so big for the concepts they ignored even as a market leader. And are letting it flourish to gain market research.
Even Mario Maker was made because the japanese devs got tired of "MAKE another mario! MAKE ANOTHER mario! MAKE ANOTHER MARIO!" contrary we might be taking a western view of "MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE! MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE! MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE!" to maybe people who could just be going. "BUT i don't want to make this game, every hour, every day, every idea, every feature! i just want to relax a little!!!!"
And honestly there are a lot of damning near mesh appearances and exact. I admit im as skeptical as they come, but i noticed even obscure pokemon all seemed to be shillolette copied 1:1 and recolored. To me, despite the ai debate, this seems to indicate that people think there might have been Pokemon 3d / Hello Eevee/Pikachu models ripped and retextured(??), which for any game would be a serious no no.
They have some really detailed animation work. But i think the westerns focus on ever increasing quarterly profits to meet stockholder growth or be fired might be clashing against the more Seniority focused Japanese approach.
Japan respects their seniors wishes far more and sometimes people easily get bored of making the same things over and over, even if it's many's favorite games in the world. It's not uncommon for a month of work to result in a minute of content. Maybe Japan is taking selective silence quickly enforcing pokemon mods while instead of going 'MY QUARTERLY PROFITS!" might be going. "ahh. at last. a few days of peace."
Or maybe they're preparing a lawsuit from hell, documenting every single infringement, and making it waterproof or maybe less strict eyed. But there's still a lot here. It's a well liked copy game that in some ways many like over the originals. I played Pokemon red as a kid up to diamond and stopped playing because every game, every re release, every rom hack, every knockoff was the same. Collect mons, beat 8 gyms, 4 move turn based battles that all did the same thing 80% of the time. Do damage.
Even Hearthstone Mercenaries copied 3 move pokemon meets Raid shadow legends $$$$ meets tired.
I don't think this game is waterproof, actually far from the reverse of it. I've heard even Kikkoman bottle salespeople proudly boast that their Bottle silhouette is a registered trademark. The Pal world pokemon are near identical retextures. The animation on them is adorable and well made. But it looks like a legal glass house if it was poked. Sure the designs themselves are legally distinct enough.
But if Kikkoman soy sauce and Coca Cola can boast about trademarking a bottle, could a early access game really get away with pokemon meshes for everything from even the more obscure? I think if Nintendo had wanted to sued, they would have sued, and likely known a lot better than us laymen their internal thoughts.
We're strangers guessing the actions of strangers, in the same way you have less idea than me if i preferred chicken or enchiladas. So how do we know if the silence comes from prefering peace or profit, or gathering information to make a case airtight?
What if Nintendo is letting it exist to catch a break? What if something as mundane as maybe say. Maybe the creator might as well go "I NO want Make Open world Pokemon with guns and Slavery / Paper Mario Thousand year door again! Go play Other game! Whiny western fanboys Leave! Have enough money, want sleep!!!"
What if maybe they're even people silent enjoyers. Like yeah Nintendo is notoriously strict, but Pokemon games is also famously strict. It's a glaring hole that something like this made it to market while Things like Pokemon Bronze got immediately copyright striked, but were left alone when they became things like Doodle World. (Basically pokemon's gameplay, with Paper mario mons)
Maybe they're letting this game flourish to see what people like. Hell, maybe the devs could even be playing it themselves for market research. The mesh matching is extremely damning even if it wasn't same genre marketed as a direct competitor. I think the silence is not made out of lack of knowledge but maybe tact only a insider or they would know.
Everyone looking for a conspiracy and acting like a proxy warrior have also complained the pokemon games are rushed, formulatic, never innovate, repeated the same formula for so long. This game is a bootleg, but it's a highly successful one selling a odd mix that people seem to want droves in droves, despite no name power.
If Nintendo can learn what works while having market dominance over the OG fans and Switch, they might treat it less like competition for "addicts will only buy one video game of the genre" vs "addicts will buy EVERY game and spend 1000$s on mtx if u let them. We can let this game float, get information for our own. And expect the superfans to buy both anyways like the 2000$ of skins they say they don't".
1. Basically i don't believe that Nintendo is clueless.
o They watch like hawks and instantly shut down the Palworld -> pokemon $$$ mod.
2. I don't think Palworld would be completely airtight.
o Trainer + monster is too broad or Monster + element to be copyrighted/trademarked.
o But Meshes are highly suspiciously identical, Even by any skeptical metric.
3. I agree i think If nintendo had already wanted to sue, we would have likely seen it in the womb or DMCA'ed immediately like the pokemon mod.
They made Mario maker since they were tired of "MAKE MARIO! MAKE NEW MARIO! MAKE MARIO!" Could they just be letting up "Open world Pokemons with guns and slavery" because they don't want to make "Open world pokemon with guns and slavery?"
There must be a reason they haven't, even if private.
I don't know where you live, so maybe this is true for you, but where I'm from this is absolutely false. If your case was dismissed without prejudice then yes, you can sue again, but if Nintendo were refile with the same facts and allegations immediately after dismissal rather than appealing the decision, they could be seen as a vexatious litigant, hit with sanctions and then have their case dismissed WITH prejudice, which would preclude them from filing another lawsuit on the matter, even if new evidence were discovered that definitively proved the arguments of the relevant party.
they also copied arks engram system
You are generally right but if they file giving a different basis for their filing then even if it involves the same game it is a different claim all together. This would not afford protection from vexatious litigation if filed this way. Also it can be dismissed with prejudice and still appealed.
However my intial comment was not trying to insinuate refiling but the fact that anyone can make any claim to the court and that itself is what is meant when someone is "sued".
I think both of you bring valid points though.