I'm sorry but patents and gaming do not mix.

[BlairiesTTV]

I'm suprised a judge would even allow a patent lawsuit to even graze a ingame mechanic. Nintendo is pretty infuriating when you think about it from never or barely reducing the cost of their games (a lot of the older titles are still 60) To gimmicky consoles that you only buy for Zelda, Mario party, Or monster hunter. Which lets be real im glad their claws aint in MH titles anymore. Lets not forget the games they do lite changes to "pokemon" has been like the same for decades. Arceus was what people wanted for YEARS but they are regressing cause it requires innovation and some train of thought

Its that kinda thing where you wanna call out whoever thought of this masterful idea to sue pocketpair and challenge them to a boxing match where you beat the breaks off of them.

Nintendo is just dead weight as a company the saddest part is the older you get the more you see how Nintendo is purely built on greed, Which is why the main audience is children. Cause they wont see it.


Sorry for da rant

[White Rabbit Alice]

Back in the past, the nemesis system from the Shadows Of War series was a grand idea. but they patented it, and never used it anymore after 2 games... kind of criminal that no one can innovate/improve on it (Right now anyway). i feel the same thing for palworld actually.

[BlairiesTTV]

Originally posted by Irene ❤:

Like it or not, Rich people play those games. Gaming is very profitable, it is above music and movies now.

For example the RPG game tales of eternia had to rename themselves to tales of destiny due to a cartoon He-man, where their world is called eternia.

Things just cannot be the same. If pokemon is throwing ball and summing a monster to fight in a distance, then palworld summon that monster at close range.

If one bought a $5M shoe and another tries to use the same color, it will be sued. We can argue "come on, shoes can have any color!" - of course it could, provided it's not rich. :erune:

I dont exactly agree. nothing i can do to change it but you dont have to be rich to play Nintendo games. im just highlighting the marketing greed that is Nintendo. Gaming is profitable sure but if it went by those rules fully and everyone started throwing patents out a lot of games up right now would be hitting some tough corners. Only a select few went down that route. but its not something that should be tucked under the rug.

It's easier for you to accept it and lay down all arms. I just call it like i see it.

[Vex]

I agree that patenting game mechanics should not be allowed by any law. Speaking as someone who isn't versed in law, international or otherwise, what I've read about this case is interesting.

Nintendo's patent of the game mechanics is considered a continuation of their patents for, Legends: Arceus. That's how/why they were able to file the patents after Palworld released, as Legends was released first. Nintendo wouldn't dare risk their trademarks in court (no sane business would), but patents are another matter. They know they can't go after Palworld for it's overlapping design elements between certain pokemon and pals. Going to court over patents was their best option.

What's crazy is how this isn't even Nintendo going after a small indie developer who won success by doing more with the creature catching genre.

It boils down to Sony.

Ages ago (80s/90s), Nintendo and Sony were going to enter a partnership. There was even a press release by Sony about a future console, the, 'Nintendo Playstation.' Nintendo backed out of that partnership incredibly fast, leaving Sony with egg on it's face. While Sony still launched the Playstation and it was a major success for a console, a grudge was born.

Along comes Palworld, the first creature catcher to actually reach levels of success to rival Pokemon, and Sony see's a chance to take a shot back at Nintendo. Sony has been in rough spots over the years. While Nintendo was fostering intellectual properties across console generations (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc...) and those IPs became household names, Sony has struggled to do the same. If you ask someone what Sony's equivalent of Mario is, depending on their age they might respond (in a questioning tone), Crash Bandicoot. That said, comparing Crash Bandicoot to Mario is pretty laughable.

Palworld is Sony's chance to tarnish one of Nintendo's crown jewels with competition, and establish the start of a staple IP of its own. Small wonder Nintendo's response is to go on the offense with what lawsuits it can.

Even knowing all of that, I rather hope that Palworld wins the lawsuit. Patenting game mechanics is utter nonsense, and will do more damage to the industry than even micro-transactions and loot-boxes have. It's also long past time Nintendo should have been doing more with the Pokemon IP. The games have been so stagnant over the years that Legends: Arceus was hailed as a breath of fresh air, but Palworld makes it look like an incomplete solo project by comparison with the depth of it's systems, world design, and content.

For its own sake, Nintendo needs to lose this lawsuit and realize its needs Pokemon to grow as much as it's other intellectual properties.

[funewchie]

Originally posted by Vex:

It boils down to Sony.

Ages ago (80s/90s), Nintendo and Sony were going to enter a partnership. There was even a press release by Sony about a future console, the, 'Nintendo Playstation.' Nintendo backed out of that partnership incredibly fast, leaving Sony with egg on it's face. While Sony still launched the Playstation and it was a major success for a console, a grudge was born.

Patenting game mechanics is utter nonsense, and will do more damage to the industry than even micro-transactions and loot-boxes have.

To make it worse, at that 1991 Electronics Expo, Sony announced the CD add-on for the SNES (codenamed Playstation), and their partnership with Nintendo.
...But the following day at the Expo, Nintendo then announced their partnership with Sony's rival, Philips.

Nintendo hadn't even bothered telling Sony the deal was off until it was announced to the public.

So yeah, Sony was pretty ticked.
They then took that Playstation device and hat they'd learned from their partnership, and went on to make the Sony Playstation (PS1) and began competing with Nintendo.
(Like my grandpa always said: "Don't get mad. Get even." )
------

Thinking of lootboxes, there could be one good thing that comes of this lawsuit, if it exposes a legal problem that moves governments to fix it. Similar to how lootboxes had to become regulated or outright banned.

[Holy Fool Sehrael]

Wholeheartedly agree, game stuff shouldn't be patented. There are a lot of things you can do differently, depending on the case, but eventually you'll run out of mechanics and co and be like "TF am I supposed to do now? Everything I can think of is patented!" and then we have a monopoly on games. I don't know if it works that way, but that's what I think is going to happen at some point if this practise continues, especially when patents are as vague as they are oftentimes.

[Torbulous]

This is why I no longer support Nintendo. I refuse to fund their lawyers that are ruining other things I'd rather support.