this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
199 points (97.2% liked)

Games

32508 readers
1497 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pocketpair goes on to say that Palworld has been claimed to infringe on three patents held by Nintendo and The Pokemon Company and that part of the damage is required as compensation.

The first patent is one that most had guessed to be part of the case, as 7545191 refers to the process of capturing and befriending Pokemon, which Palworld apes with its Pal Spheres. The other two patents that are included in the lawsuit, 7493117 and 7528390 haven't been found and detailed just yet, but they're likely also mechanics in Pokemon games that are replicated in Palworld.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 136 points 5 days ago (11 children)

Even as a dedicated pokemon fan that hasn't played Palworld (the butchering mechanics don't really appeal to me)...

I really hope Nintendo loses this, and loses it HARD. I think that some actual competition would be really healthy for the pokemon franchise, giving them an actual impetus to make sure their games are high-quality and well-supported and don't pursue serious anti-consumer practices.

Godspeed, Palworld. Counting on you.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 33 points 5 days ago (7 children)

The unfortunate part is that Nintendo is likely going to win it. It’s a Japanese company, in Japanese court, and the courts are hilariously biased in favor of Japanese companies. Nintendo has literally never lost a lawsuit in Japan against a foreign defendant, because the Japanese courts are set up to trust Japanese claimants more than foreigners by default.

Japan has a lot of cute media and a reputation for being polite, but the harsh reality is that the country is one of the most racist in the world. They get away with it because the culture is built upon being polite. But under that polite exterior, there is a lot of overt racism. Japan is one of the most homogenous populations in the world, with 99.8% of the population being native Japanese. That remaining 0.2% includes all of the tourists, visa holders, immigrants, half-Japanese children, etc… Japan has a saying, which roughly translates to “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” In a society that is focused on blending in, immigrants stick out.

Imagine how bad the White Power rhetoric would be if America were 99.8% white, and that other 0.2% (not 2%. Two tenths of 1%) of non-white people included tourists, immigrants, and naturalized citizens. In a packed 20,000 person stadium, that would only be 40 non-white people in the crowd.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I hadn't realized the court was within Japan. Does Palworld conduct business inside the country? I'd think if it was never released there, Japan would have no basis to pull them into a foreign case.

[–] PhenolFight@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Pocketpair (Palworld dev) is also a Japanese company.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

So there are two Japanese companies, what racial bias is there then?

[–] PhenolFight@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago

There wouldn't be. Person from the top of the chain presumably hasn't actually read up on things here and just jumped to conclusions.

[–] BrowseMan@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Japanese court also tend to privilege big companies...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)