The difference being that some Steam games are DRM free, so de facto you do have full ownership of what you buy (just like with GOG), as long you have a copy for the files.
They are not paying directly. As per the article you can get additional PTO days in the future, albeit only after Squadron 42 is released (whenever that’s going to happen) and if you are still with the company.
Sure, I mean this is a forum discussion (in a relatively underground platform no less).
I don’t see what this has to do with what I am talking about. If the article sucks, what is this innovation in Nintendo’s products/services that was copied by Palworld? This is a very simple and straightforward question, no?
What’s wrong or “too deep” about a question like that?
What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?
I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?
We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is “greedy clickbait”, then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?
Without going through all of their patent filings no one can. So again, that is the point. Lack of info
We are both gamers (I am assuming this is true for you since you’re commenting here). I am not talking about legal understanding of Japanese patent law. Just a practical evaluation of Palworld vis-a-vis Nintendo products. What genuine technical innovation (I am not talking about bullshit patents for stuff that was implemented many decades ago) do you see in Nintendo’s products that was copied by Palworld?
This is not difficult.
Never said a ban on commentary, just hate bullshit articles.
The implication of thread OP was that articles critical of Nintendo (in the context of this case) should not be published as of today, no? Why is any commentary immediately categorized as “greedy clickbait” or “rehashed content”?
Something I agree with you on. Let them fight. This discussion is in the context of bullshit articles with zero information.
I would argue it’s not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has. What is this magical innovation that we see in Nintendo products that was copied by Palworld?
I would argue we do have enough information to have a take on it. What legitimate patent infringement case do you see in context of Palworld and Nintendo’s products? Be clear and specific.
If you’re going to call for a ban on commentary, you need to have some of argument.
From my perspective, it is crazy to defend some random corporation in this way when you can’t even come up with a basic explanation of why critical commentary is not justified at this stage.
I am just curious, do you have a take on how Nintendo’s lawsuit could be legitimate? Even a high-level theory, surely if you are so concerned about speculation and “greedy clickbait”, you have some logical ideas to back this up?