Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Pocketpair, Inc.
Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Pocketpair, Inc.
Press release of Nintendo Co., Ltd.
You're viewing a single thread.
Anybody who's played palworld knows the game is nothing like pokemon. What's next, are they going to claim they are the only company who can make games with 4 legged animals?
They said patent violations, not copyright, so it is about some sort of mechanic or system and not the pals or any specific designs. I'm guessing the thrown ball capture system, since it seems no other developers have published anything using that specifically.
They shouldnt be able to sue for that cause a patent only lasts for 20 years in Japan. I saw some guesses that there might be a patent for one of their legends games that they are suing for.
World of Final Fantasy is as close to a Pokemon rip off as you can get, and they didn't get sued.
Edit. And now I think about it, the mobile game of Rick and Morty was very much a reskin of Pokemon.
Actually ARK does this with cryopods.
World of Warcraft's pet capture system was actually very similar to Pokemon, including better traps with better chances of success.
I'm sorry, it's mostly humanoid furries now with the starter Pokémon...
I played it and I felt like it borrowed a lot of elements from Pokemon. It wasn't Pokemon, but you can't deny it took like 90% of their inspiration from Pokemon and then added guns to it.
That's like any FPS game ripping off any other FPS game.
Fight, capture, tame, train, breed animals.
Base building, research tree, enemy raids.
Exploration, resource gathering, survival.I don't think Nintendo has a monopoly on enslaving animals.
I know what you mean, tho. It's always described as "Pokémon with guns and 3xE gameplay".
But does Nintendo actually have a case that will hold up in courts?
Pocketpair seems confident they can defend against it. So either they have done their research and are up for a fight. Or they (think they) are calling Nintendo's bluff.
But Nintendo has a whole pack of lawyers.Unfortunately there are no details on what the patents being infringemed upon are, just that they relate to "Pocket Monster".
I don't believe Nintendo will hold up in court.
But it's the combination of it all, aside from guns and concentration camp levels of slavery, that make it look like they straight up copied ideas from Pokemon.
It's true Nintendo doesn't hold the specific style or gameplay mechanics, and that's where I think they'll fail to win a case, but just saying it's just so blatantly obvious where the inspiration comes from.
I have a feeling that this is going to be the case. Palworld is not copying anything so it's not copyright and doesn't even need a "fair use" argument for it. The patents of gameplay mechanics don't really hold up in court.
Nintento's legal battle chest is stuff of nightmares for smaller companies and they should be countersued for anti competitive behavior.
Which, incidentally, would probably past legal muster. You can get pretty close to the source material, and as long as it's your own custom art, it's not infringement.
That said, lawyers can send a C&D letter for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court, but they're betting the target won't want to pay that kind of money to fight it.
I don't understand. Everyone, literally EVERYONE was calling this game pokemon with guns when it released, so why are people mad that the makers of pokemon are suing? We all saw it from the start
The comparison is valid, but doesn't mean it infringes on any patent.
Otherwise, FromSoftware would sue the shit out of every soulslike out there.
Just because it has a resemblance to pokemon doesn't make it pokemon. The gameplay is completely different.
Permanently Deleted
Palworld is an open world survival crafting factory/base building game, that happens to borrow the catching mechanic from Pokemon (who borrowed it from Shin Megami Tensei).
Where is the line drawn between borrowing and copying?
If you can't draw inspiration from other games, then the gaming industry as a whole is in trouble.
It's one thing to draw inspiration, and another to directly copy the art style and mechanics of an established franchise to piggyback on their brand recognition.
K first of all, the mechanic you're referencing was already an established mechanic before Pokemon Red/Blue came out. The Pokemon Company didn't invent the "creature catcher" genre of video games.
Second of all, as I've said already, the catching mechanic in Palworld is absolutely distinct enough to be considered as drawing inspiration from Pokemon, and not copying. If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I'll meet you down there, but if you're just gonna continue to spout meaningless contrarianisms I've got better things to do
Third of all, "cell shaded anime art style" describes hundreds if not thousands of video games, not just Pokemon games. You can't realistically claim that Palworld copied Pokemon's art style* just because it uses a cell-shaded anime style, especially because Pokemon has only used that art direction for the last two generations of games, and the style has been in use long before sword and shield came out.
It seems like you're just willfully ignoring my actual meaning to defend the game.
Yes, creature capturing existed prior to Pokemon, but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
Yes, cell-shaded graphics existed before Pokemon, but Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon, mixing and matching parts to make something that is different enough to not be a direct copy of any one design, but similar enough that a casual observer would be hard pressed to tell them apart. There's a good reason that pretty much every review of the game refers to it as "Pokemon with guns."
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn't intentional is disingenuous at best.
but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
If you think "throwing a ball" is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct. If you have a problem with that though, take it up with The Pokemon Company, because they did it first.
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn't intentional is disingenuous at best.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics. That's how video games in the same genre work. You make them similar to things you know people like, so that there's a greater chance they'll like your game too, but you also introduce new, unique things so that you're not copying. Yes, Palworld did that intentionally.
None of that is illegal though, or shouldn't be anyways, unless they're straight up stealing assets/code from a Pokemon game and using it in Palworld.
You obviously haven't actually played the game.
Copying would imply a one to one duplication. The catching system in Palworld differs in multiple ways from the Pokemon system. I think that's enough to call it borrowing and not copying.
Lots of games are also called Roguelike. Based off a game called Rogue. The makers of Rogue do not get to sue the makers of Hades.
Pets that fight for you, including being able to store them for portable carry has been done by many other games, including Ark. In fact, playing Palworld made me compare it more to Ark than Pokemon: base building, automation, catching dinos/animals/monsters of different varieties for different uses. Some can fly, some run, some can be used as parachutes. Some help automate actions at base. There is a tech tree unlocked by leveling, starting with primitive weapons and moving on to guns and higher caliber guns. Blueprints are common in ark for higher quality crafts to build at, you guessed it, crafting benches.
Collecting wood, stone, metals, etc. Also the animal assistants can help there too, but only certain ones. Also, Ark has cryopods for storing your animals/dinosaurs. You even throw em to release.
If they had exactly Pikachu or something it's one thing, but similar games are just part of the business.
But we're not talking about a game type here. You can agree that this is a dumb lawsuit, but you have to be honest. Palworld was marketed online as pokemon with guns. It's not just a similar style but almost identically copies the characters in Pokemon. You can make a stealth action political thriller video game, but if the main character looks just like solid Snake and is called "Viper", you gonna get sued.
Really? Why does Deathstroke and Deadpool both exist? One is DC, one is Marvel, and Deadpool pretty much started as an expy. Slade Wilson and Wade Wilson. You're arguing from a place of what feels like it should be wrong, yet your fake example has been done in the real world and they got away with it.
This happens so many times in industries they can often just argue parody. In fact, changing a name slightly is classic parody to avoid being sued. Japan in particular often just bleeps out a syllable or forgets a character in the name.
I guess you must know more than lawyers huh.
I think it's understandable why they sue them (I doubt it holds up in court though), it's just horrible business practice because Nintendo is too lazy to actually innovate and do something creative for a change, instead of sitting on franchises like that and do fuck all with it, only releasing repetitive piss-poor games based on the exact same concept they invented like 30+ years ago.
The problem is people will still buy Pokemon, even if they're absolute garbage games. So Nintendo won't change it either.
I think it's an issue with Japanese game companies in general. I've been complaining about Capcom forever. Megaman 11 was a side scroller. I'm a massive mega man fan and I like the side scroll. But it's 2024. Can we try something new? I would love a ratchet and Clank style, open world 3d mega man where you go to the different areas of the city and take down the bosses. Also games like monster hunter, are so janky and look 10 years out of date, and most Capcom games look outdated
Nintendo is making a case that the use of capsules to capture and carry creatures is their IP.
Dragon Ball was using capsules to store things long before Pokemon did. And Dragon Ball Z, which ended in Japan in '96 had already done storing 'creatures in capsules. Saibamen for one. And after the Saiyan saga Bulma puts her dead friends in coffin capsules.
So Akira Toriyama did it before Pokemon.
Also, Iron Bands of Bilarro in DnD 5e, but I'm not sure how far back the history of that item goes. DnD 3.5 had Iron Flask that works kinda the same, but Iron Bands is more similar to a Pokeball.
Yeah, they should absolutely argue that storing things, alive or not, in capsules has been used in numerous movies and shows and that the patent is invalid. Big corporations make tons of patents all the time just in case and then see if they hold up in court later, such as Nintendo with their pokeballs in this case. They still don't know whether Palworld is an infringement or not
Does patent mean something else there?