Not even going to joke about this, but I am really hoping nobody there gets the bright idea to make a Barbie blockchain or NFT or anything like that.
Speaking of “Ready Player One”, the author Ernest Cline also wrote literally the absolute worst, grossest, most misogynistic poem I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading in my life. Now you’ll have to read it too to make sure the “Reqdyverse” never succeed and thus, zero possibility of Barbie blockchain.
I agree that dev to user is best, and I agree that the current greenlight processes for game publishers are pretty busted, no arguments there. I also have bigger issues with the sub model he's not even mentioning.
In fairness, though, I think for majors with that busted greenlight process the sub model does enable some games to get made that wouldn't otherwise. Some games just don't work at full price and just can't stack up to the major productions but they do get checked out in a sub. For smaller games and devs the sub money can guarantee survival.
But that doesn't take away that a subscription-dominated market is poorer, the preservation issues or any of the other problems with that being the primary thrust. Tech guys tend to be all-in on things and think they should be THE way because more money is more optimal and if they dominate then that's more money. In reality for a content ecosystem to thrive a multi-window ecosystem is probably best. Also, I want to buy games I can own, and the less they let me do that the more I want it, so... there's that.
I have no problem with subscriptions as they are right now, my issue is a potential future where I am not given the opportunity outright buy the games I want to play.
Game subscriptions will never stay as they are right now. Microsoft is basically burning money with GamePass they aren’t making a penny. Currently they are wining and dining the devs with big checks, but once MS has cornered the market they won’t be handing out these big bags of cash anymore. And they will definitely raise their prices. It’s big tech disruption tactics 101. Undercut the competition and go into the red until the competition throws in the towel then lower cost and increase the prices.
I always tell people concerned about this sort of thing to look at how cable TV still exists long after obsolescence. The content delivery system won’t dry up before the content you want does (at least not in your lifetime).
Yeah, but much of the cable content is lost to time. That’s why we have stories like that of Marion Stokes, who collected tapes at her home and preserved hundreds of thousands of hours of news footage.
Sure, and the amount of lost PBS footage alone due to draconian copyright restrictions borders on criminal.
The point isn’t on the quality of the distribution method. Even if it was, preservation efforts for games that qualify for the concept of game ownership are far more advanced. The point is that when an entertainment industry gets this big, it takes the deaths of multiple generations for the market to dry up.
Are there examples for a games that wouldn’t exist without subscription services?
Small games can sell for smaller money and get successful without subscriptions, too (like Vampire Survivors, Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice and many more).
I don’t think subscription services will pay good money to small productions. I mean look at Spotify’s or Twitch’ payouts. Only the big dogs get fed and the smaller ones have no choice.
I refuse to support streaming games or subscription models as they only screw the consumer in the end. These companies have shown time and time again they are not to be trusted.
Such as editing games after release to remove media, inserting shitty launchers and DRM , removing content you have paid for such as dlc, shutting off the multiplayer servers etc
Once they have the market streaming they can set the price as they wish and you will have to have mutiple subs to play different games. Were seeing this with movie and tv streaming now.
They don’t care about preservation just the CREAM … dollar dollar bill y’all
Valve is good for now and I support them to help further linux for us all but gaben is not immortal so who knows what the future holds.
I like gog but as a linux only gamer steam is just way less hassle.
Emulation and roms is the only way to be sure you can continue to play your games. So get building your collection.
The industry chases whatever makes the most money. It’s the artists who are fortunate and/or hardworking enough to not do that who I aspire - and who’s games I want to play.
Some of them seem pretty bad. I feel like the example image with the eyes and the teeth is quite a damning stylistic choice, compared to some of their other monsters which look more like a palette swap and animal change with some model variations. Save for the few that straight up have the same attack, like the Deciduueye example, I think it's reasonable enough to use them for inspiration, although not necessarily the best option. It's a shame they felt the need to rely on something that is popular I think it hurt them a bit by not having as uniform a vision.
That said, even if I do think it's pretty obvious I don't want them to lose this if anything comes of it, Pokemon is just as bad and they have nothing to gain from ruining this persons work other than asserting dominance.
I do hope they use this as a learning opportunity for next time and maybe stop being so goddamn blatant in their "homage". I would have been much more inclined to the game if it felt like the monsters had some rationale behind them because the game is pretty solid overall. All I can say is that I hope the game continues to exist but maybe gets a more original in-world bestiary and not Pokemon Gen 15
Calling this one image damning feels like corporatized media has become so dominant, people don't really get anymore how similar things need to be for it to be an actual legal issue.
Superhero comics have a lot of characters that are obvious ripoffs of characters from other publishers and yet they are still legally distinct enough that they can get away with it. Comes to mind also how Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse to replace Oswald the Lucky Rabbit which, even though he also created, was owned by Universal. Both were rubber hose-styled. black-bodied, white-faced, big-eared animal characters wearing shorts, and yet that was also legally distinct enough for his ownership of the character to be established.
It would take far more than a similar face for Palworld to be liable of anything. Sure, it's enough for people to tell they have tried to imitate it, but by itself that's not grounds for legal action.
There are some claims of copying or tracing meshes going around on social media that could be an actual issue, but the validity of those is still questionable. The Pokémon Company needs to either point out a near identical design, and I do emphasize, near identical, or to prove that stolen assets were used in the game's creation.
I'd argue against the example image being damning in the first place because it's fairly obvious they're both derived from the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, which is well passed the point of being public domain
Not only that but they have entirely different body shapes and color schemes. I doubt a face by itself could be copyrighted. If that was the case a lot of anime would have issues.
For the thumbnail image, they took meoth face, purugly body and that's it
These designs are not "inspired" they simply imported the assets from a pokemon game on blender or something, used "copy and paste" for different body parts and that's it, job done that's their completely original creature, totally not copied
One thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize in this whole discussion is that, whatever you may think of it as far as artistic integrity goes, Pokémon only owns the full complete design of their characters and the actual game files, but not every possible independently produced variation or recombination of those traits. They own Wooloo but they don't own every possible roundish sheep-like creature.
To be fair it's obvious that Palworld's company Pocket Pair doesn't care about originality. But whether the are literally infringing on the Pokémon property is unclear, and a lot of people are making serious but baseless accusations out of snowballing social media outrage.
If there's any actual, real issue that warrants a lawsuit, you can be sure that the Pokémon Company's lawyers will find it out. It's not like they need anyone to defend them, we are literally talking about the biggest media brand in the world.
That Azurobe model really gets me. If you look at Serperior, it has that collar that's effectively a second layer of the body, so the body above/"inside" it is thinner than the body below it. If you remove the collar, there'd be a discontinuity between the two sections. And wouldn't you know it, Azurobe has a shitty-looking ribbon slapped on the neck right about where that discontinuity would be. If they had used the Serperior model as a guide for proportions but made the model itself from scratch, there'd be no need for that ribbon to be exactly where it just so happens to be.
I'd really love to get my hands on these models and check out a few things.
So does Rockstar, Valve and Microsoft investigate for any unlicensed commercial usage of the Intellectual Property they own and copyright violations by others. Some are less aggressive, that's for true. If it's not, then Pokemon Company or Nintendo simply don't care.
Edit: Did the reply I was replying to disappeared? I am sure I was replying to someone who said Nintendo would go to investigate the game for any IP infringement.
There are over 1000 Pokemon at this point. There's bound to be some level of similarity here and there. Gamefreak even designed Pokemon after other creatures, so it just seems somewhat silly to point a finger.
Barcelona-based transportation-themed art studio Bel&Bel has created a new and highly accurate replica of the fantasy bike, and will now build them to order on a limited basis for less than $30,000USD.
forbes.com
Najstarsze