this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
266 points (97.5% liked)

Gaming

19717 readers
742 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 10 hours ago

Nintendo learned Patent Troll!

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Nostalgia is a hard drug. You can still appreciate games from you childhood & not buy games or consoles from a evil company.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Plus, there's always piracy. With that said, I generally prefer the older games anyway.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yup. Piracy is bad so make sure to avoid that. Specifically, do not search for “Yuzu 1734” and combine it with “Firmware 18.1” and “Prod keys 18.1”, because if you did that you would be all set to pirate switch games. So to repeat, definitely don’t search for these things. Now you know what to avoid.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 39 minutes ago

That would be so unfortunate, I would definitely hate that!

[–] pixelscript@lemm.ee 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

It's speculated that the patent in question (or one of) is one that essentially protects the gameplay loop of Pokémon Legends Arceus.

https://ipforce.jp/patent-jp-P_B1-7545191

Running the first claim of the invention through Google Translate yields this massive run-on sentence description:

The computer causes a player character in a virtual space to take a stance to release a capture item when a first category group including a plurality of types of capture items for capturing a field character placed on a field in a virtual space is selected based on an operation input of pressing an operation button, and causes a player character in the virtual space to take a stance to release the capture item when a second category group including a plurality of types of combat characters that engage in combat is selected, and determines an aiming direction in the virtual space based on a directional input, and further selects the capture item included in the first category group when the first category group is selected, and the combat character included in the second category group when the second category group is selected, based on an operation input using an operation button different from the operation button , and causes the player character in the virtual space to take a stance to release the capture item when a first category group including a plurality of types of capture items for capturing a field character placed on a field in a virtual space is selected, and determines an aiming direction in the virtual space based on an operation input using an operation button different from the operation button, A game program which, based on an operation input of releasing the operation button pressed when having the player character perform an action, has the player character perform an action of releasing the selected capture item in the aiming direction if the capture item is selected, and has the player character perform an action of releasing the selected combat character in the aiming direction if the combat character is selected, and when the capture item is released and hits the field character, makes a capture success determination as to whether the capture is successful, and when the capture success determination is judged to be positive, sets the field character hit by the capture item to a state where it is owned by the player, and when the combat character is released to a location where it can fight with the field character, starts a fight on the field between the combat character and the field character.

Essentially, Nintendo has a patent on video games that involve throwing a capsule device at characters in a virtual space to capture them and initiate battle with them. In other words, they have a patent on the concept of Poké Balls (as they appear and function in Legends Arceus, specifically).

Palworld has "Pal Spheres", which are basically just Poké Balls with barely legally distinct naming.

If this sounds like an unfairly broad thing for Nintendo to have a patent on, I'm not so sure I agree. It's not like they're trying to enforce a blanket patent on all creature collectors. Just the concept of characters physically throwing capsule devices at creatures.

If you think about it, that's kind of the one thing that sets Pokémon apart from others in the genre. If there's anything to be protected, that's it. It's literally what Pokémon is named after--you put the monster in your pocket, using the capsule you threw at it.

Palworld could have easily dodged this bullet. They claim they aren't inspired by Pokémon, and that they're instead inspired by Ark: Survival Evolved. Funny, then, that Ark doesn't have throwable capsules, yet Palworld decided to add them. I'm not sure I buy their statement. And if this is indeed the patent being violated, I don't think a court will buy it either.

I'm not trying to be a Pokémon apologist here. I want Palworld to succeed and give Pokémon a run for its money. But looking at the evidence, it's clear to me Pocketpair flew a little too close to the sun here. And they're kind of idiots for it.

I'm just surprised they aren't getting nailed for the alleged blatant asset theft.

[–] cadekat@pawb.social 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Arguably Ghostbusters (1984) is prior art for throwing a capsule and capturing 🤣

Edit: they even had a video game with the ghost trap

[–] homicidalrobot@lemm.ee 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Ark has cryopods which do the same thing mechanically, the only major difference being that you don't visually throw them. If you use the vague wording on the patents surrounding pokemon's box mechanics, it falls easily under there, since you are storing a captured creature in a digital storage.

Nintendo is the KING of frivolous patents. They've lost cases on it before, and with palworld being a sony interest, I don't think the usual financial bullying nintendo brings to the table is going to cut it on this one. They need an airtight case and their vague patents (and recent history trying to patent THE LOADING SCREEN and vehicle speed matching for player characters with totk being denied) is a bad look for them in a courtroom. Like the US, the holder of a patent in Japan needs to file suits swiftly to protect the patent, or they risk losing cases (like this one. See "laches defense").

Palworld is back in the top 100 global bestsellers today.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 64 points 19 hours ago

Fuck off, Nintendo.

[–] Missmuffet@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

Is there any way to support pocketpair during the lawsuit? I already bought the game, and it's one of my favorites, and pokemon can eat a dick

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Surp@lemmy.world 47 points 19 hours ago

Fuck Nintendo don't buy their products.

[–] parpol@programming.dev 61 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

It is probably something stupid like Nintendo having a patent for "pocket" in names, since Pokemon is "pocket monsters"

Patents in videogames should be banned.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago

I agree, but I think all intellectual property laws should be repealed. I came to the conclusion that patent, copyright, and trademark are all varying levels of bad years ago and I think it clearly holds the human race and human progress back by limiting creative iteration.

[–] jbloggs777@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 17 hours ago

That would be trademark infringement. Patents are much more nefarious.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 52 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

*Patents should be banned.

Fixed it for ya. ❤️

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's genuinely not as simple as you think it is. You realize there was a time before modern patent law, yes?

[–] Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Patents should be banned ❤️

[–] Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone 20 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

Patents are (at their core) a good thing. It protects little Jimmy Inventor from putting hours and his blood, sweat and tears into coming up with a novel invention, only for some big corpo to see it, steal the idea and bully Jimmy out of the market.

Jimmy has legal recourse to sue the big corpo if he has a patent, whereas without one he has nothing.

Just because the system's been gamed (especially in the US) doesn't mean it's impossible to reform, and is currently still better than nothing.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago

But patents for genetic beans, or drugs that the government or public institutions that we the public fucking pay for should be allowed.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 hours ago

Patents are not, at their core, a good thing. They are nice for an idealized and transient scenario, but the reality of capitalism is that the vast, vast majority of investment, production, etc. are done by a handful of large companies, and that includes R&D. Patents are, in reality, overwhelmingly one of the many tools large corporations have to shut out upstarts. In short, it entrenches the power of monopolies, trusts, and similar large businesses.

And that's without even starting on how the law can be abused and, with the way our legal systems work, it is fundamentally more abusable for the side that has more money and can afford top corporate lawyers to concoct convenient arguments, leaving little Jimmy in the dust.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 11 hours ago

In the US, every employment contract has a line where any "invention" of an employee belongs to the company, so

[–] Broken@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 hours ago

I agree. The system is screwed up, but that doesn't mean the intention was bad. Having no patent rights just means that whoever has more money will win. Big corps have the resources in both money and infrastructure to bring anything anybody else invents to market faster.

So today, big corps win. If we do away with the system, then big corps win. The only solution is reform. Or consumer knowledge and the ability to resist buying something in protest (which has failed time and time again which is evident by the big corps existence).

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Patents as well as intellectual property laws, are entirely unnatural and only exist to prop up Capital.

Its against human nature to prevent cultural iteration.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 10 hours ago

Patents as well as intellectual property laws, are entirely unnatural and only exist to prop up Capital.

Most people won't understands this concept due to poor education they received. They will spout the propaganda that benefits their owner daddy and they will feel super smug about it too 🤡

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 hours ago

Patents should be banned ❤️

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Sure, but how do you solve the problems that patents in turn solved (and brought new problems with them of course)? That as kinda my point, if we just ban patents we can just look back to know which problems we need to solve in another way.

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 100 points 22 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 58 points 22 hours ago

Had to delve into the patent dungeon. Its large and all the names are incomprehensible.

[–] Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

It could be they waited to not trigger the Streisand effect too hard.

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 53 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Interesting it's a patent lawsuit and not copyright. I haven't played Palworld and barely know how Pokemon works; is the gameplay in any way similar?

[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 25 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Except for the capture mechanic working similar, which hopefully was not just copy-pasted, the gameplay is completely different. Palworld plays like Arc x Fortnite, while Pokémon plays like Final Fantasy.

And the general design-inspiration itself shouldn’t be an issue. Because I don’t think "style" can be copyrighted

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I know that's how it works in the US, but the lawsuit is in Japan, which you always hear about having stricter copyright laws. Not really sure how this one will play out though.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

Yeah but again, not a copyright lawsuit.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 38 points 21 hours ago

They'd have very little chance in a copyright suit and they know it. Because you can't copyright game mechanics or general concepts, and those are the things Palworld pretty obviously copies.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 29 points 21 hours ago

You capture monsters in balls, hurting them more makes it easier.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 43 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Outside of a passing similarity to Pokemon, I wonder what the suit is about

[–] Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works 88 points 21 hours ago

It's about Nintendo and their rabid legal practices.

load more comments
view more: next ›