• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I honestly feel like Nintendo simply can’t let people do what they do, better.

    Palworld was very explicitly cribbing from Nintendo IP. Down to the lead developers caught on record demanding that certain existing Pokemon be used as models for their content.

    Also, the game was a bit of a flash in the pan. Idk if I’d conclude they “did it better” so much as they capitalized on a couple of popular trends to catch a surge of early adoption. Pokemon’s been chugging along since 1996. Lets see if Palworld can survive a full three years, nevermind the next 30.

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The Palworld suit is not an IP suit because whether or not Palworld was “cribbing” from Pokemon they were well within the bounds of the law. They don’t even have to claim parody - their designs are their designs, despite the clear inspiration.

      The lawsuit is over software patents, most likely the patents that Nintendo has for throwing a ball in a virtual space to capture a creature and riding on a virtual creature, aka absolute specious bullshit.

    • Zahille7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      How were they stealing from Nintendo? And even if there is a record of some Palworld devs saying they want to use Pokemon in the game 1:1, that’s not what ended up happening at all. The only ones who actually think PocketPair used 1:1 Pokemon designs are actually blind Nintendo fanboys.