I nudged my sliders until all the important factors—tear duct length, tear duct height, skin glossiness, etc—were where I needed them to be, and then hit the “randomize appearance” button a few times for good measure. Then, I booted my creation out the door and into life.
Did I write and publish it this while sleepwalking or something?
Combination of anti large company sentiment + people feeling entitled to get things for free if I had to guess. It also usually feels wrong when a corporation threatens a lawsuit over a single person since the US court system heavily favors the person with more money and it’s probably a true statement to say that Nintendo has more resources than the lead dev.
Modern Vintage Gamer on YouTube had an interesting take in that by stifling emulator development now it will hurt the industry in the long run because Switch exclusives will become increasingly difficult to play once support ends (an argument I myself don’t find all that compelling)
Nerrel on YouTube has a well put together and researched video on emulation where at least in the US it’s been tested in court several times that emulators are legal, but obtaining the code for the emulators to run is almost always not since you usually have to make a copy and that violates the publisher’s right to copy
Honestly I am tired of Nintendo I cant buy any games of them while they keep up this behavior this is unacceptable, at least for yuzu there was a minimal reasoning this is just a thread to begin with
Now refunded it seems. The person probably contributed to say it’s a scam, like some of the other backers in the comments.
We’ve noticed that some backer’s contributions to our Kickstarter may not have the best intentions behind them, and we want to ensure that all support is genuine and positive. With this in mind, we have decided to return the 12k SGD so that the funds can be put to better use by their owner
I don’t understand. So if I make a video game and my main character is an Italian plumber who wears red and blue, jumps on mushroom people and grows when he eats a mushroom, and Nintendo sues me. Nintendo is wrong? Or are we pretending palworld isn’t “Pokemon with guns” which was literally what people were pushing it as
the problem is, palworld isn’t “pokemon with guns”, they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it’s a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.
The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it’s called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC’s anything else is already present in other games.
By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That’s far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.
Anyways, it’s very very clear what game palworld took it’s creature design from. So I don’t think the lawsuit is as silly as the Nintendo haters insist
that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn’t sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise
In the US, Atari tried to sue someone who made an Asteroids clone back in 1981 and lost because Meteors, the clone had made some improvements on the idea of Asteroids (color, among other things). This cemented US legal precedent that you can’t sue people for “ripping off” games so long as they make some meaningful change to it and aren’t just making a direct knock-off.
This current case is in Japan, however, where the legal landscape is very different and companies need to be legally aggressive to maintain any rights to their IP from what I understand. I have no idea how that’s going to go down.
“Catch creatures to use to fight” is a broad enough theme that it should be fair use, and has other precedent. For example, it was done in Bomberman Generation. Why didn’t Nintendo sue Konami?
Meh. Even small corps often do something well once and then fall to the wayside.Nintendo has been pretty good at recreating their core IP, whether it’s the 3D version of Metroid on GC or open-world Zelda on Switch.
If they’d actually bought out the Palworld IP (assuming that was an available option) that would have meant cash for the devs and a way to work with it in a way that was unique but inclusive to the Pokemon franchise. A lot of people are getting tired of the latter because it has become rather stagnant, but the new mechanics with the official Pokemon characters/stats/etc could have benefitted both
Nintendo doesn’t do that though. They don’t go “wow, this looks cool and there’s real interest. Maybe we could work with the dev and make it an official product. They’ve done most of the work already!” It’s lawsuits all the way
pcgamer.com
Aktywne