Rufous

#1

Personally I have no horse in this race per se because I neither own or play Switch or Palworld (I'm a PS4 guy & so it's oddly not available there when there's an Xbox One version ).

But to me, being a gamer since PS1 era, the Big N doing this is simply unjustifiable & holds back videogame progress in a larger sense.

Should companies like Square or Atlus sue other turn-based RPGs now? What about Ubi & Splinter Cell, must they ban other games from using shadows? Oh & Fromsoft's infamous "bonfire" & die-get-your-things-back thing,  should they lawyer up too & go after every single Soulslike now?

And if I'm not mistakendidn't the SMT Persona games first did this whole monster-taming / capturing in games? So how come they didn't sue anyone ...

Similarly how Warner games patented "Nemesis System" from the LOTR Mordor games, such mechanics shouldn't be prisoners of their makers for reasons greedy reasons & other ulterior motives or what have you.

Where do we draw the line?

The saying "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" exists for a reason because it improves upon the next iteration & helps grow the industry as a whole.

"A rising tide lifts all boats" & everything, right?

Thoughts on this everyone.

#2

I'll use COD and Battlefield as an example. I would say maybe 90% of the gameplay mechanics are the same or very similar, but that's just the nature of fps games, and if you want to pull players from another game then in some aspects you don't want your game to be drastically different---you would want it to be familiar enough that you can jump in and know what you're doing. I don't think Nintendo has much of a leg to stand on

#3

I mean to be fair (and you did point this out), the bad precedent was already set by Warner Brothers when they trademarked the Nemesis System. All Nintendo is following precedent and potentially expanding it beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. It is so obviously not good either way.

#4

I'll use COD and Battlefield as an example. I would say maybe 90% of the gameplay mechanics are the same or very similar, but that's just the nature of fps games, and if you want to pull players from another game then in some aspects you don't want your game to be drastically different---you would want it to be familiar enough that you can jump in and know what you're doing. I don't think Nintendo has much of a leg to stand on




Which makes you curious what does Nintendo's legion of lawyers say & how they defend this

I just don't understand why government guys let these kind of stuff happen you know. In movies, cars, phones, etc. it NEVER happens yet videogame guys get away with this.

#5

I mean to be fair (and you did point this out), the bad precedent was already set by Warner Brothers when they trademarked the Nemesis System. All Nintendo is following precedent and potentially expanding it beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. It is so obviously not good either way.




Dude for real & what's even funnier is because these two companies, Palworld & Nintendo, are FROM Japan.

Honestly I just believe Nintendo thinks they can bully anyone & lawsuit guys not named Sony, Microsoft or Apple, which if you think about it doesn't align with their values like family & friends games, etc. right ?

#6

The only reason they are going after Palworld is because it sold 25 million copies and it's now a serious competitor to Pokémon. Asian companies hate when they finally have to face competition and are used to monopolies.

#7

ROFL, they registered throwing a pocketball as a game mechanics.