Unpopular opinions

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Nintendo really is cold.

They let Palworld rock, not amount to anything more than a flash in the pan, and then sued their asses after they got some money.

Nasty work. Fuck Nintendo's legal team on principle tho.

 

[ant4456]

That doesn't work legally.

what im saying is that

1. yes if this is relevant they will ask artist experts on if the models could have possibly been made on their own

2. and they will say no, because they are clearly plagiarized

 

[RocketSurgery]

That guy admitted he was lying. The models are not derived from Pokémon ones.

Do you have a source for that? Last I saw back when the game came out was a guy did a model comparison and found the meshes lined up pretty well for various parts on various mons/pals, and then they later clarified that they had to resize some of the models to make the overlap obvious and then people started acting like that meant the Palworld models couldn't have possibly been edited Pokemon assets. So unless I missed a follow up where the guy (or someone else who did a similar comparison) admitted to more heavily editing the models, "guy admitted he was lying" sounds like it could be the result of internet telephone or memory decay.

 

[Pikachu315111]

Before you continue I just want to say this is all just speculation on my part.

That guy admitted he was lying. The models are not derived from Pokémon ones.

I've also read the only thing one of the guys who did a comparison admitted to was scaling alteration, honestly at this point it's so long ago who know what's true or not.

Because the thing is I don't know how else they can "get" Palworld; at least any which won't be thrown out of court. "We patent the idea of sneaking around monsters and throwing orbs which they go into" doesn't really sound like a solid case, especially when said concept has been done in other games (sometimes a bit differently, sometimes in parody) Nintendo nor TPC have made no attempt to go after. This isn't the "Nemesis System" which Warner Bros. patented, you can tell that was a deep mechanic with a lot of gears and chains working in the background to create multiple games worth of unique enemies with different appearances & personalities who have potential to become stronger, raise in the Orc ranks (I believe if they get high enough they start leading their own troops, all who could be given their own identity if they defeat the player), and become your sworn enemy.

And it would be strange for them to go that angle when the design infringement case would be so much stronger. Copyright Infringement though would just be them comparing design aspects which could easily be tossed aside as "coincidence" or even as "homages". But with all the months they had I have to imagine they looked through every aspect of Palworld and found something that allowed them to file for a stronger patent infringement case which requires GF to have more solid evidence. It would be crazy not to think GF patented all their Pokemon models, after all the Pokemon are the most vital assets to the franchise. And there could be something about the models we don't realize, and if that something was also found on the Palworld models...

Nintendo really is cold.

They let Palworld rock, not amount to anything more than a flash in the pan, and then sued their asses after they got some money.

I would say the only thing that maybe made Nintendo & TPC decide to act now is Pocket Pair (Palworld's Developer) had made a deal with Sony to I think make Palworld a Sony exclusive or something to that effect.

Until now, Palworld had been under "Early Access" which technically means the game is still in development. However this deal with Sony could be the line too far, that this has been presented as a finished product to a major corporation who agreed to form a partnership on the current contents of the game.

And to Nintendo & TPC that signals it's "go time".

 

[Worldie]

I would say the only thing that maybe made Nintendo & TPC decide to act now is Pocket Pair (Palworld's Developer) had made a deal with Sony to I think make Palworld a Sony exclusive or something to that effect.

Until now, Palworld had been under "Early Access" which technically means the game is still in development. However this deal with Sony could be the line too far, that this has been presented as a finished product to a major corporation who agreed to form a partnership on the current contents of the game.

And to Nintendo & TPC that signals it's "go time".

This honestly reminds me of how a lot of other "Pokemon-adjacent" games like a certain pokemon MMO keep afloat, keep going in perennial alpha so they arent eligible for lawsuits.

That said, the Palworld leadership stated more than once that they feel safe and that Nintendo was well aware of their existance and plans since multiple years, so at this point I'm curious of what the lawsuit end up being.

Hopefully they got their stuff sorted and this is just Nintendo trying to pull the "we're big enough to win a lawsuit even if we're wrong" card without any actual basis. I need that game to get on PS5 already.

 

[Samtendo09]

It’s actually gameplay patent infringements than copyright infringements, as it turns out.

Gameplay patents in general isn’t helpful to the video game industry due to holding interesting and innovative gameplay mechanics hostage, and Nintendo themselves have patented about 52 gameplay mechanics from ToL: Tears of the Kingdom, at that.

 

[Valoo]

Most companies will patent their mechanics but these are rarely enforced. This is only like the second time Nintendo have sued for patent infringement.

Tbh I do not care that Nintendo are suing them, because patents aside the game is a very clear ripoff of Pokemon, and pocketpairs history is mostly AI shit and random copycat games. I’m guessing they went the patent direction because it was easier to win.

 

[Samtendo09]

Most companies will patent their mechanics but these are rarely enforced. This is only like the second time Nintendo have sued for patent infringement.

Tbh I do not care that Nintendo are suing them, because patents aside the game is a very clear ripoff of Pokemon, and pocketpairs history is mostly AI shit and random copycat games. I’m guessing they went the patent direction because it was easier to win.

I guess that means it makes mechanics patent rights having an use for easier legal pursuit against blatantly similar games, but otherwise nothing to worry too much about.

I hope that the patent infringement video I put still provides a clarification on the Nintendo + TPC vs Palworld lawsuit.

 

[ant4456]

In general what is or isn't a patent is something that is weird to discuss (esp. since this is Japanese law and not American law, keep that in mind)

but also patents for gameplay mechanics in general for games are often hyper-specific or just ignored tbh

i mean if Nintendo didn't ignore Sega's patent on camera control in the 90s then Super Mario 64 wouldn't exist lol

I like the theory that the 3D models (which is why it'd not be a trademark or smth, for the design rather than the 3D model) because that'd make more sense

 

[ant4456]

double-posting

friend who looks at JP twitter more often found someone who seemingly made designs for palworld, only for their designs to be edited in order to have more pokemon parts on top of the designs

they confirmed that a lot of the designs are what they called a "chimera" (collection of pokemon combined into one design) and that they tried to steer the designs away from stealing but failed

To be clear I do not have first-hand sources on this person working on Palworld. They seem to be QRTing the CEO being annoyijg on Twitter.

 

[Zowayix]

Some more thoughts/allegations I've seen bouncing around:

• JP patent law is apparently different from US patent law in such a way that it covers things that wouldn't be called "patents" in the US system, such as trademarks.
• There's some misinformation floating around that the patent allegedly violated by Pocketpair wasn't filed by nintendo until mid-2024, "so that's why they waited until now to sue". If I recall correctly the patent was originally filed in 2021 for LA and some kind of update(??) was made to it in 2024.
• However, I've also heard that Pocketpair already made a game with this supposedly-patent-infringing mechanic back in 2020.
• Remember that JP copyright law is also significantly different from US copyright law. In particular, (1) there's no fair use defense (2) copyright terms are also 25 years shorter compared to the US (it used to be 45 years shorter but was sadly extended retroactively in 2018).

Obviously I have no legal experience.

 

[DrrT]

I can't believe we have quite literally seen the grass Cinderace and the black Mega Mewtwo Y being so blatant ripoffs they even felt the need to hide the later, yet people are seriously still defending there was no plagiarism. Same with them saying themselves the game is not Pokemon at all to cover their asses but people apparently still knew more than them and claimed it was just a "parody". You only need to watch trailers of the other games they have done to see it wasn't a coincidence. Playing the game itself, it has the literal same beggining as LA. They have never attempted to cover their ripoffs nature. They just didn't expect Palworld to blow up so much.

Like. You don't even need to be an artist to see it. At this point you are all being in such denial is worrysome. I can't believe you are making me side with Nintendo's legal team of all things, but this is just proof of how little people actually care about this stuff if they like a game.

 

[Samtendo09]

I can't believe we have quite literally seen the grass Cinderace and the black Mega Mewtwo Y being so blatant ripoffs they even felt the need to hide the later, yet people are seriously still defending there was no plagiarism. Same with them saying themselves the game is not Pokemon at all to cover their asses but people apparently still knew more than them and claimed it was just a "parody". You only need to watch trailers of the other games they have done to see it wasn't a coincidence. Playing the game itself, it has the literal same beggining as LA. They have never attempted to cover their ripoffs nature. They just didn't expect Palworld to blow up so much.

Like. You don't even need to be an artist to see it. At this point you are all being in such denial is worrysome. I can't believe you are making me side with Nintendo's legal team of all things, but this is just proof of how little people actually care about this stuff if they like a game.

I myself wondered what’s so original with the Pals’ designs, other than a very few standouts. I feel like people who defended cared too much in the creatures’ design than actually see them to see and try proving if they really aren’t ripoffs design-wise.

Very few Pals out there can even pass off as real Pokémon, as evidence with Chillet. It’s like a Furret evolution that gains Dragon-type, but also Ice-type.

 

[Zowayix]

I don't think people are angry about a lawsuit over plagiarism - I think people are angry because nintendo chose to do a patent lawsuit specifically. Patenting game mechanics sets all sorts of terrible precedents.

 

[ant4456]

I don't think people are angry about a lawsuit over plagiarism - I think people are angry because nintendo chose to do a patent lawsuit specifically. Patenting game mechanics sets all sorts of terrible precedents.

A bit of column A, a bit of column B.

There are a lot of people who see Palworld as this statement game where they've been fucked over by a big company, and a small UwU indie developer made a "better product" and now Nintendo is stomping angry because of it, something something.

People like to attribute more feelings to companies than is actually true, in this case and other cases.

There are also a lot of people who genuinely are worried about the patent problem, but if they're anti-patents this isn't anything big. For one, patents in Japan are going to be different, two Nintendo literally sells most competitors to Pokemon on their own eShop (they don't actually care), three companies ignore patents for game mechanics all the time because it's silly and usually doesn't hold up in court.

Super Mario 64 wouldn't exist if Nintendo patenting 3D camera controls actually worked. To my knowledge the only patent that has done its job is the Nemesis system; people will also point to the case of "minigames on loading screens", but honestly from a game design perspective that is hyper-specific and not nearly as applicable as people think it is.

Actually fuck it, random 12AM thoughts about the minigame-loading-screen patent:

For one, most games load very quickly and have been getting faster throughout the years relatively to before. Games that don't usually hide their loading seamlessly through infamous examples such as the Sony-Game Shuffle; but also examples that people tend to dislike less, such as the transition to the Underground loading in Tears of the Kingdom. Other games offer other things such as training modes while waiting for games to start, or in the case of Splatoon 1 you had minigames on the touch screen while matchmaking.

Overall it's actually quite hard to tell if the patent is actually working or if the idea is actually, honestly, kinda fucking mid. The only game I can think of maybe getting use out of it is a Rockstar game because those still take like Way Too Long.

 

[Rapti]

This lawsuit is genuinely worrying since is the first example we've seen of Nintendo patent trolling since the 80's
and it is patent trolling not differences in japanese law, japanese courts already decided you can't own gameplay elements
(Ok, so Nintendo's been patent trolling well after the 80's)

and before I forget
Palworld didn't plagiarize Pokemon's designs
the designs are just highly derivative

"ohh but designz lookz similar so plagirizezezez"
look if this guy

isn't plagiarizing this guy

then no, the cartoon plant dinosaur isn't in fact plagiarizing the other cartoon plant dinosaur
"ohh but that not countz cause it homage"

the standards for what counts as plagiarizing are far stricter than simply high resemblance
this may be the comicbook fan in me, an industry in which derivative designs happen all the time, but Palworld designs aren't even that conspicuous
for example

does this guy look familiar?

he should

what about their powers?
well, Jim Harper doesn't have any superpowers but he's in top physical condition and fights villains with his unbreakable shield!
Steve Rogers on the other hand took a serum that put him in top physical condition but doesn't have any superpowers otherwise, he fights villains with his unbreakable shield!

what about their personalities?
well, Jim Harper is a brave and honest man who never gives up and doesn't tolerate any kind of injustice!
Steve Rogers on the other hand is a brave and honest man who never gives up and doesn't tolerate any kind of injustice!

did you know that the both of them started their heroic careers (and were published) in the 1940's but ended living in modern times due to fantastical means? Steve was Frozen! Jim was cloned!

and legally, this hasn't counted as plagiarism for 80 years
to the date, they both still appear in comics
to rival publishing companies

you really have to steal someone else's work in order to plagiarize something; very close resemblance doesn't count

"but they uzed the Aiz"

no they didn't
we saw the first trailers for Palworld (as in we saw the design of their monsters) in June 2021
DALL·E the first Ai image generator available to the public opened its beta in July 2022

Palword didn't use Ai
they didn't commit plagiarism
their designs are just derivative

 

[ant4456]

This lawsuit is genuinely worrying since is the first example we've seen of Nintendo patent trolling since the 80's
and it is patent trolling not differences in japanese law, japanese courts already decided you can't own gameplay elements
(Ok, so Nintendo's been patent trolling well after the 80's)

and before I forget
Palworld didn't plagiarize Pokemon's designs
the designs are just highly derivative

"ohh but designz lookz similar so plagirizezezez"
look if this guy

isn't plagiarizing this guy

then no, the cartoon plant dinosaur isn't in fact plagiarizing the other cartoon plant dinosaur
"ohh but that not countz cause it homage"

the standards for what counts as plagiarizing are far stricter than simply high resemblance
this may be the comicbook fan in me, an industry in which derivative designs happen all the time, but Palworld designs aren't even that conspicuous
for example

does this guy look familiar?

he should
View attachment 670914

what about their powers?
well, Jim Harper doesn't have any superpowers but he's in top physical condition and fights villains with his unbreakable shield!
Steve Rogers on the other hand took a serum that put him in top physical condition but doesn't have any superpowers otherwise, he fights villains with his unbreakable shield!

what about their personalities?
well, Jim Harper is a brave and honest man who never gives up and doesn't tolerate any kind of injustice!
Steve Rogers on the other hand is a brave and honest man who never gives up and doesn't tolerate any kind of injustice!

did you know that the both of them started their heroic careers (and were published) in the 1940's but ended living in modern times due to fantastical means? Steve was Frozen! Jim was cloned!

and legally, this hasn't counted as plagiarism for 80 years
to the date, they both still appear in comics
to rival publishing companies

you really have to steal someone else's work in order to plagiarize something; very close resemblance doesn't count

"but they uzed the Aiz"

no they didn't
we saw the first trailers for Palworld (as in we saw the design of their monsters) in June 2021
DALL·E the first Ai image generator availave to the public opened its beta in July 2022

Palword didn't use Ai
they didn't commit plagiarism
their designs are just derivative

literally a fucking palworld designer said they plagiarized pokemon what are you talking about

 

[ant4456]

every time people show an example of "pokemon plagiarism" it's always gen 1 pokemon and it's always really not that similar in concept and idea

gen 1 was the most derivative dex because most of its early concepts weren't made by an actual character designer, they were made by a nerd who could draw who definitely was derivative at points of things like kaijus

but you can't pretend pokemon is some extremely derivative series and any time i see people link pokemon to dragon quest or something it literally isnt plagiarism

because

making something
based on
a concept
isn't
plagiarism

idk why people think this is what people who say palworld is plagiarized mean. it isn't. Monster Collection games cover similar concepts all the time and they look *extremely different*

look at Pokemon and Yokai Watch covering the same concepts:





this isn't plagiarism

the fact that palworld 3D models are basically pokemon ones modified and that they literally line up directly design wise is what makes it plagiarism

not that pokemon made a fire fox and palworld made a fire fox

 

[Rapti]

literally a fucking palworld designer said they plagiarized pokemon what are you talking about

Those tweets you posted? its author is not describing plagiarism (do not trust the Google translation)
In order to commit plagiarism you must use another person's work, not imitate it, not emulate, not make it look like another person's work literally take it and make it pass as your own

eb_kemco is complaining about their designs being altered to resemble more closely Pokemon's designs
resemble ≠ plagiarize
not illegal
hence why Nintendo's lawsuit is problematic, is patent trolling, it has no actual legal ground to stand on

the fact that palworld 3D models are basically pokemon ones modified and that they literally line up directly design wise is what makes it plagiarism

Nidoking is not based on the concept of kaiju, it's literally the character Baragon but with different feet

seriously, Toho has more serious grounds to sue Gamefreak than Nintendo has to sue Poketpair (not that Toho should sue Gamefreak)

 

[ant4456]

Those tweets you posted? its author is not describing plagiarism (do not trust the Google translation)
In order to commit plagiarism you must use another person's work, not imitate it, not emulate, not make it look like another person's work literally take it and make it pass as your own

you realize they literally did that right

they stole 3d models and edited them

also no you can absolutely plagiarize work without literally just copying it. You can rewrite a story with new character names but it's still plagiarism if it hits the plot beats and you did it with the intention of passing work off as your own.

there are palworld pals that are basically just pokemon recolored

eb_kemco is complaining about their designs being altered to resemble more closely Pokemon's designs

they called a "Chimera" because they're saying they took the design and added pokemon parts in order to make it more plagiarized, which they as an artist basically said is plagiarism.

resemble ≠ plagiarize

plagiarism is about intent and i dont see why you dont get this

if you make something with the intention of copying something and trying to make it your own, it doesn't matter if it's "legally distinct", it's still plagiarism and im going to fucking shit on you for doing it

hence why Nintendo's lawsuit is problematic, is patent trolling, it has no actual legal ground to stand on

we literally dont know what their case is

 

[Rapti]

in order

you realize they literally did that right

they stole 3d models and edited them

no, they didn't

plagiarism is about intent and i dont see why you dont get this

Your personal dictionary doesn't count
My personal dictionary doesn't count either

here's an actual dictionary definition of plagiarism
here's a legal one
plagiarism has nothing to do with intent

we literally dont know what their case is

actually, we do


look, you don't have to like Palworld, you don't have to like derivative works, but you do have to use the actual definitions of the words you use, otherwise what you intend to say and what you actually say are gonna differ enough that language with others is simply going to break down
especially if others are using the strict definitions of words as I am

I am talking about how a company imitating some particular designs or artstyles (i.e. being derivative) is not the same as plagiarising (i.e. taking someone's work and pretending it's your work) because confusing one for the other leads one to invalid accusations

now you can say that a derivative work has no value (I disagree) or argue about attribution, but equating a work, no matter how derivative, with passing someone else's work as your own is simply wrong
one is transformative, if only in a small amout depending on the work, but the other simply adds nothing and is a much more serious accusation
(and calling something derivative is an accusation but not to the same severity)
basically I'm arguing not that Palworld is without fault but that the accusation is 1. inaccurate and 2. too severe for what Palworld is actually guilty for, is a matter of degree

 

[ant4456]

no, they didn't

they didn't fake it, they said they increased the proportions to make it more even in their proportions

you realize in reverse the palworld devs could easily fucking increase or decrease the models too right

Your personal dictionary doesn't count
My personal dictionary doesn't count either

here's an actual dictionary definition of plagiarism
here's a legal one
plagiarism has nothing to do with intent

yeah that definition basically says what I said

"pretending that it is your own"

pretending is an intention word. it means that you know what you are doing and are lying, it is deceitful.

im a fucking english nerd get off my case because you are NOT going to win it

actually, we do

this is speculation, not them actually presenting their case

look, you don't have to like Palworld, you don't have to like derivative works, but you do have to use the actual definitions of the words you use, otherwise what you intend to say and what you actually say are gonna differ enough that language with others is simply going to break down
especially if others are using the strict definitions of words as I am

I'm using the actual definition of the word.

I am talking about how a company imitating some particular designs or artstyles (i.e. being derivative) is not the same as plagiarising (i.e. taking someone's work and pretending it's your work) because confusing one for the other leads one to invalid accusations

I am talking about the actual literal plagiarism they did, just because you say "nuh uh" and say you have the correct definitions doesn't make it correct LOL

when an actual palworld designer says that they were plagiarizing designs
when you can take the 3D models and find it is plagiarized (no, increasing or decreasing size of objects does not make it not plagiarism! you can just do that!)
when literally you can just look at them and see it
when the CEO of the company uploaded AI generated Pokemon designs to their social media

its fucking plagiarism and im not pretending otherwise

 

[DrPumpkinz]

guys look at these two completely different pictures I took

 

[Rapti]

Ok

they didn't fake it, they said they increased the proportions to make it more even in their proportions

you realize in reverse the palworld devs could easily fucking increase or decrease the models too right

you do realize the article is not talking about this tweet
but about this tweet

yeah that definition basically says what I said

"pretending that it is your own"

No you didn't and you know it; you said

if you make something with the intention of copying something and trying to make it your own, it doesn't matter if it's "legally distinct", it's still plagiarism and im going to fucking shit on you for doing it

If you make something with the intention of copying something and trying to make it your own, by definition you are making something
drawing say, a Pikachu by your own means and simply taking Ken Sugimori's drawing of a Pikachu and claiming is your own are very different things

and while lying does have an intentionality; you can't equate wanting to plagiarize with the actual act of plagiarizing, you haven't made an action simply by wanting to make an action
the act of plagiarism is not about intent of copying, is about the act of lying about doing something you didn't

this is speculation, not them actually presenting their case

Considering not just the opinion of the reporters but of copyright lawyers that Nintendo has no case but to patent troll it seems like the only possible conclussion

when an actual palworld designer says that they were plagiarizing designs

he didn't say that

when you can take the 3D models and find it is plagiarized (no, increasing or decreasing size of objects does not make it not plagiarism! you can just do that!)

this says the models are different assets

when the CEO of the company uploaded AI generated Pokemon designs to their social media

and here we come at the crux of the issue
source?
source your arguments
show some proof

 

[Worldie]

The one thing that saddens me the most is people still shitshowing each other about the design issue when what Nintendo is fighting against isn't that, and the lawsuit is much more dangerous to general public than people think it is cause of what patents fighting means in terms of creating precedents..