Weird, I have a regular old 2TB (or maybe it was 1?) western digital plugged into the USB on the back of my series x and it works fine, not sure I understand the need to spend a bunch on something like this. Edit: and before responding about speed… I haven’t noticed much, if any, difference in game performance from installing on the drive or external outside of the initial game loading (startup) time, so not sure if that’s the only benefit to using the expansion slot.
Hmm I’ll have to check this later as I don’t remember ever running into that problem since my Xbox internal has been full for a while. But I also wonder if that applies to physical copies or not since all my series x games are physical. Unless Xbox does this automatically in the background without user intervention, then I may have not noticed
I don't think they can do much at all, actually. They're not allowed much wiggle room when it comes to being DMCA-compliant. They pretty much have to take every takedown request at face value, because DMCA requests are a legal process, and I imagine that any intervention on YouTube's side could be seen as arbitration. I doubt they could do much to interfere with an impersonator, since even a falsely-submitted DMCA complaint is still a legal request that has to be processed accordingly.
The DMCA needs to be gutted.
Nintendo can do something, though. They're the ones being impersonated, so they can actually take the guy to court.
Platforms actually do get more leeway than is usually thought with DMCA takedown requests. If they believe it to be fraudulent, they have every right to disregard it. That’s a fact they conveniently try to downplay because they want people to think they have no responsibility for their actions.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. You can tell by the fact that they don’t take down videos from big corporations when some nobody trolls with a fraudulent DMCA request. They only do it when it’s the other way around.
This back and forth from the comments on the article is interesting:
What the article ommits: The youtuber in question has a long history of threatening smaller channels with various actions against them, from brigading to lawyers to copyright strikes, if they do something he doesn’t like and don’t bow to his will. So I’m not surprised to see someone was fed up with him eventually.
Two wrongs don’t make a right as my nan used to say. This YouTuber being a bit of a grunt does not negate the fact YouTube itself is happy taking a hands off approach to a fundamental part of their business model because the ones it affects are not the ones that give them most of the money.
Of course it’s a problem, I just feel 0 sympathy in this case and I find it ironic that it’s him especially that got hit with the same treatment he threatens others with.
@alyaza I really don't support GOG enough, I should get GOG's versions of RE2 and 3, the originals were better than the REmakes anyway (the exact opposite of how the original REmake and RE1 worked)
As long as you keep a pc with the specs and OS of the time the game was released. GOG is also making an effort to patch these games to make them run on current hard- and software without the hassle of finding and downloading fan patches, running emulators/virtual machines and all the other hoops one might have to jump through to get an old game running.
Of course you could theoretically pirate the gog version after they made it run, but given that these games usually cost about 5-10 bucks and some go as low as 1-2 when on sale, i think that’s worth it to support these efforts.
But code subject to copyright (which I agree with the concept of but it needs a reform). While concepts and ideas in computer programs and games can be patented (which I think is tremendously stupid)
From the translation of the claims, they appear to describe Pokémon-style activities, with ‘191 focused on the act of throwing a ball at characters in a field, ‘117 tied to aiming, and ‘390 on riding characters.
If this is indeed the case, the lawsuit is clearly illegitimate (in the real sense, can’t speak for legal nuances). Not surprising.
That’s not exactly it. I read the description of '191 and it seems to be more like “throwing a ball to capture a character and place it in the player’s possession or throwing it to release a captured character”. You can see the patent drawings also depecting that, so it’s basically a patent of the Pokeball.
Not a lawyer so I have no idea how it’ll go in court but it does sound like Palworld infringes on this. It’s kinda funny that they could’ve avoided this by being a bit more legally distinct, like how TemTem throws cards instead of balls.
The second one is an older application of the first patent (pokeball again). The third one is literally just being able to mount an object or creature with some caveats like a flying one having to come down and carry you up, that one is ridiculous and a lot of games do something similar all the time.
Skyrim did it first with dragons. Honestly I bought palworld specifically to spite shitendo and ended up pleasantly surprised by a very playable game. Shitendo is just mad that someone else did it better on a shoestring budget
It would be funny if a legal defense would have been using an n-sided 3d polygon that definitely isn’t a sphere. Is a tetrahedron legally distinct enough? How about a truncated isocohedron? Seems silly for the shape to matter.
The one thing about patent law I know is that you can’t patent something that already exists in the wild (“prior art”), so surely that can’t be the case, and if it is then it’s open-and-shut, right?
Why is everyone here pretending like palworld isn’t a straight up Pokemon clone that went a bit too close with the designs? I mean the game was basically marketed as pokemon with guns. I know you guys have this new hate for Nintendo, but this isn’t even them.
If I made a game about an Italian contractor with a red hat and mustache that fights mushroom people and turtles, you guys would defend it and claim it isn’t a copyright issue lol
Why is everyone here pretending like palworld isn’t a straight up Pokemon clone that went a bit too close with the designs? I mean the game was basically marketed as pokemon with guns. I know you guys have this new hate for Nintendo, but this isn’t even them.
Because it doesn’t matter. Palworld isn’t getting sued for copyright infringement, it is being sued for patent infringement.
If I made a game about an Italian contractor with a red hat and mustache that fights mushroom people and turtles, you guys would defend it and claim it isn’t a copyright issue lol
Again, Nintendo isn’t suing for copyright infringement, but for patent infringement. It’s more like Nintendo suing Monster Hunter Stories for allowing you to ride your monsters (this is literally one of the patents Pal World is getting sued for).
I will never understand when people engage in volunteer (i.e. unpaid) PR work for some random company.
Criticizing a company for lazy patent trolling (a patent for riding a mount?) is not engaging in “hate crimes against video games”.
Nintendo is welcome to release good products on multiple platforms (Palworld runs on PC) to compete with Palworld. Crazy idea, I know!
One would think I should patent the concept of releasing good games to compete with other companies, but out of the goodness of my heart I will release this unique idea into the public domain.
If your opinion is identical to the corporate sourced PR copytext (not to mention the condescending style - “everyone knows”), then yes it is de facto PR work.
Even if it were an exact clone I don’t think a single company should have a monopoly on the idea for almost 30 years. Pokemon red was released in 1996, 28 years ago. Why should they still be able to be the only company that releases pokemon-type games?
5 mil yen is about $32k. In total they’re suing for about $100k.
I would imagine the 3rd patent at the very least should be invalidated - riding characters in video games predates Pokemon (MegaMan riding Rush comes to mind, as well as World of Warcraft [although I don’t know if the patent predates WOW mounts]). However the nature of patents is that once they’re granted they are very difficult to dismiss.
The other two are more tricky. Throwing balls at something us a uniquely Pokémon idea, I think, and the aiming one would come down to the technicalities of the patent itself, which is all Japanese to me.
Yeah the newer they are, the more frivolous they are - especially since you could argue the release of games using those patents amounts to public disclosure.
However, you’re still left in the situation where an established patent is very solid and difficult to challenge, even when it should never have been granted in the first place.
Seriously? Are they gonna go after TemTem. Coromon, Cassette Beasts, or any number of Pokémon clones for being too similar? The only thing i can see as a legitimate thing to sue on is if they find out palworld did use AI based off of Pokémon models to generate their models, but I think that was just a rumor anyway.
The difference between palworld on the ones you listed is Sony made a move to start a “Pokemon company”-like business with the Palworld devs (named Palworld Entertainment) and Nintendo feels threatened by the potential damages Palworld Entertainment would be able to cause being backed by Sony to the pokemon franchise. In-depth look on this theory: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8apzrwv75i0
theverge.com
Aktywne