Unpopular opinions

[Pikachu315111]

So more details have come out about Nintendo & TPC VS Palworld... and they're a bit confusing.

Basically, the patents are what people suspected them to be: the ball throwing, catching, and creature riding patents which were recently submitted.

But we now also know the amount of damages they're demanding... and it's quite baffling.
"It's that much?"
It's that LITTLE (well, little for game companies that make/made a lot of money).
Nintendo & TPC are demanding 10 million yen to be split between them, translated to US Dollars that's a little under $33k for each of them.

Now, thinking about it, I'm also going to guess there's a cease & desist selling any more copies of Palworld. Because otherwise I don't get what Nintendo and TPC are trying to accomplish here aside grifting some money with BS patents like patent trolls.

 

[pika pal]

So more details have come out about Nintendo & TPC VS Palworld... and they're a bit confusing.

Basically, the patents are what people suspected them to be: the ball throwing, catching, and creature riding patents which were recently submitted.

But we now also know the amount of damages they're demanding... and it's quite baffling.
"It's that much?"
It's that LITTLE (well, little for game companies that make/made a lot of money).
Nintendo & TPC are demanding 10 million yen to be split between them, translated to US Dollars that's a little under $33k for each of them.

Now, thinking about it, I'm also going to guess there's a cease & desist selling any more copies of Palworld. Because otherwise I don't get what Nintendo and TPC are trying to accomplish here aside grifting some money with BS patents like patent trolls.

My conspiracy theory has been that Nintendo considered a line crossed when Palworld started collaborating with Sony and Aniplex for Joint Ventures with Palworld (not dissimilar to what TPC sounds like as a venture between Nintendo, GF, and Creatures with the IP), on top of the controversy about alleged plagiarism of Pokemon assets, which if nothing else plays into the idea that Palworld is similar enough as to be mistaken for Pokemon without disclaimers.

Given the chump change that the "damages" demanded amount to, my guess is that the point of this was the Lawsuit itself, to essentially tell Palworld and involved parties "watch yourself" rather than playing "don't ask, don't know" as Nintendo does with many fan projects and efforts that can in some ways be monetized such as Patreon artists or merchandise. Whether this is to try and scare Palworld away or to strongarm them into changing their image (given the IP was virally marketed heavily on the "Pokemon but with Guns and Sweatshops" meme), the surest takeaway from this is "Nintendo and their Lawyers are paying attention to Palworld"

 

[Worldie]

Now, thinking about it, I'm also going to guess there's a cease & desist selling any more copies of Palworld. Because otherwise I don't get what Nintendo and TPC are trying to accomplish here aside grifting some money with BS patents like patent trolls.

You don't have to guess this.
It's part of the requests, that they completely stop selling any copy of Palworld. That's why the fine itself is laughable.

My conspiracy theory has been that Nintendo considered a line crossed when Palworld started collaborating with Sony and Aniplex for Joint Ventures with Palworld (not dissimilar to what TPC sounds like as a venture between Nintendo, GF, and Creatures with the IP), on top of the controversy about alleged plagiarism of Pokemon assets, which if nothing else plays into the idea that Palworld is similar enough as to be mistaken for Pokemon without disclaimers.

It's not really conspiracy.
What is the difference between Palworld and other "pokeclones" like Nexomon, TemTem, etc, that have broken the very same patents they are claiming this lawsuit on? That Palworld actually made craptons of money, whereas the others barely sold a few dozen thousand copies.


Personally I can't wait for Nintendo to now lawsuit Blizzard for having thrown traps in the Pet Battles in World of Warcraft. That would be coherent of them :)

 

[Pikachu315111]

What is the difference between Palworld and other "pokeclones" like Nexomon, TemTem, etc, that have broken the very same patents they are claiming this lawsuit on? That Palworld actually made craptons of money, whereas the others barely sold a few dozen thousand copies.

Another major difference: Palworld copied several Pokemon designs. Say what you want about Nexomon & TemTem also being a Pokeclone, but at the very least when you look at their monsters you can tell someone put effort into making them unique from existing Pokemon.

I don't think Nintendo and TPC would have done this to those games had they managed to make a crapton of money or given a partnership offer by a major video game company. While people did go "it's Pokemon but better" for both of them, the comparison to Pokemon stop on the conceptual surface level and they just become games in the monster taming genre. Palworld, while it's mechanics differ from Pokemon, has that design copying issue which keeps it tied to being compared to Pokemon. QUIZ TIME! What's the name of the Grass-type Cinderace? TRICK QUESTION! Even if you remembered it was Verdash (btw, note the similarities between the names: elemental term + quick speed term), the fact you knew I was talking about it just goes to show my point for it and many other Pals.

My conspiracy theory has been that Nintendo considered a line crossed when Palworld started collaborating with Sony and Aniplex for Joint Ventures with Palworld (not dissimilar to what TPC sounds like as a venture between Nintendo, GF, and Creatures with the IP), on top of the controversy about alleged plagiarism of Pokemon assets, which if nothing else plays into the idea that Palworld is similar enough as to be mistaken for Pokemon without disclaimers.

Given the chump change that the "damages" demanded amount to, my guess is that the point of this was the Lawsuit itself, to essentially tell Palworld and involved parties "watch yourself" rather than playing "don't ask, don't know" as Nintendo does with many fan projects and efforts that can in some ways be monetized such as Patreon artists or merchandise. Whether this is to try and scare Palworld away or to strongarm them into changing their image (given the IP was virally marketed heavily on the "Pokemon but with Guns and Sweatshops" meme), the surest takeaway from this is "Nintendo and their Lawyers are paying attention to Palworld"

Huh, that's an interesting theory... though I also can't help but ask why they wouldn't just go after the trademark infringement if that was their angle.

Rereading the article, it does use the term "injunction" which, as Worldie pointed out, means they're demanding the game stopped being sold. So yeah, Nintendo & TPC ain't going after money nor are they giving Palworld a warning, it looks like they decided they want Palworld gone. I guess in Nintendo's eyes Palworld "fucked around and are now founding out"; they had all the time and money to change their infringing monster designs, they don't need to be told this, it is obvious (actually, TPC announcing "they were aware and looking into it" was probably the warning). But nope, instead of using the influx of money they got to hire a few artists to make more unique monster designs, they doubled-down by introducing some more "not-Pokemon" designs and signing a deal with Sony.

So my new theory: Had they just done a trademark infringement that would just mean Palworld would have to change their monster designs and that would be the end of that. But nope, Pocketpair is acting cocky and so Nintendo and TPC told their lawyers "do what you need to do to kill that game".

 

[AztecCroc]

Another major difference: Palworld copied several Pokemon designs. Say what you want about Nexomon & TemTem also being a Pokeclone, but at the very least when you look at their monsters you can tell someone put effort into making them unique from existing Pokemon.

I don't think Nintendo and TPC would have done this to those games had they managed to make a crapton of money or given a partnership offer by a major video game company. While people did go "it's Pokemon but better" for both of them, the comparison to Pokemon stop on the conceptual surface level and they just become games in the monster taming genre. Palworld, while it's mechanics differ from Pokemon, has that design copying issue which keeps it tied to being compared to Pokemon. QUIZ TIME! What's the name of the Grass-type Cinderace? TRICK QUESTION! Even if you remembered it was Verdash (btw, note the similarities between the names: elemental term + quick speed term), the fact you knew I was talking about it just goes to show my point for it and many other Pals.



Huh, that's an interesting theory... though I also can't help but ask why they wouldn't just go after the trademark infringement if that was their angle.

Rereading the article, it does use the term "injunction" which, as Worldie pointed out, means they're demanding the game stopped being sold. So yeah, Nintendo & TPC ain't going after money nor are they giving Palworld a warning, it looks like they decided they want Palworld gone. I guess in Nintendo's eyes Palworld "fucked around and are now founding out"; they had all the time and money to change their infringing monster designs, they don't need to be told this, it is obvious (actually, TPC announcing "they were aware and looking into it" was probably the warning). But nope, instead of using the influx of money they got to hire a few artists to make more unique monster designs, they doubled-down by introducing some more "not-Pokemon" designs and signing a deal with Sony.

So my new theory: Had they just done a trademark infringement that would just mean Palworld would have to change their monster designs and that would be the end of that. But nope, Pocketpair is acting cocky and so Nintendo and TPC told their lawyers "do what you need to do to kill that game".

The monster designs aren't part of the suit, people vastly underestimate how close something has to be to actually get successfully litigated on infringing on appearance.

 

[RocketSurgery]

The monster designs aren't part of the suit, people vastly underestimate how close something has to be to actually get successfully litigated on infringing on appearance.

That's the point, though: if TPC were convinced that the palworld devs ripped their models and tweaked them, it would probably too difficult to prove infringement, so instead they are going a patent-trolling route. (Maybe they could peove if it the tera-leak hackers also hack the Palworld devs, which... they did get temtem apparently, but I'm guessing TPC would rather bury the hackers than cooperate with them :P)

Who knows if that's actually the reason, but it makes some surface-level sense.

The other thing I've seen suggested and that I thought about when the news initially broke was whether this is a ploy to get evidence through discovery, but a Google search suggests that discovery is very limited in Japan and so unlikely to be a reason. (A Google search that Lewtwo could also have done before spreading the theory to their followers, but I guess it's only important to be accurate when Centro is spreading misinformation).

 

[Sonikku A]

Note that the patents were established AFTER Palworld was out

This is beyond sketchy on Nintendo's end

 

[Pikachu315111]

I don't get what Nintendo and TPC are trying to accomplish here aside grifting some money with BS patents like patent trolls.

so instead they are going a patent-trolling route.

Note that the patents were established AFTER Palworld was out

This is beyond sketchy on Nintendo's end

Actually, wait, is it patent-trolling if TPC actually had made use of these mechanics in the game? I think we're misusing terminology here:

Patent Trolling: Creating a patent solely hoping the idea or something close to it comes into creation in the future so that you can sue the creator; patent maker never intends on creating the thing they patented.

Patent Gatekeeping: Someone patents an aspects of something (a feature or mechanic) and now is preventing other people from making something similar; patent maker had made use of the patent but won't let anyone else no matter how obtuse the patent is.

I think knowing the terms is important for what Sonikku A pointed out. Yes, it's extremely sketchy that Nintendo and TPC patented these things after the fact, but at the same time they may be allowed to it because they had created a product that uses these mechanics including having internal design documents detailing the mechanics.

 

[woodgoldtwo]

I found this really good video about the lawsuit and possible reasonings in case anyone is interested

You should watch it and subscribe to him

 

[AztecCroc]

Actually, wait, is it patent-trolling if TPC actually had made use of these mechanics in the game? I think we're misusing terminology here:

Patent Trolling: Creating a patent solely hoping the idea or something close to it comes into creation in the future so that you can sue the creator; patent maker never intends on creating the thing they patented.

Patent Gatekeeping: Someone patents an aspects of something (a feature or mechanic) and now is preventing other people from making something similar; patent maker had made use of the patent but won't let anyone else no matter how obtuse the patent is.

I think knowing the terms is important for what Sonikku A pointed out. Yes, it's extremely sketchy that Nintendo and TPC patented these things after the fact, but at the same time they may be allowed to it because they had created a product that uses these mechanics including having internal design documents detailing the mechanics.

It's been legally determined before that you can't actually copyright game mechanics, so Nintendo's actually probably going to lose.

 

[Pikachu315111]

It's been legally determined before that you can't actually copyright game mechanics, so Nintendo's actually probably going to lose.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/warne...s-patent-for-shadow-of-mordors-nemesis-system

 

[ant4456]

I genuinely consider the Dark Void nerfs to be Top 5 Most idiotic/incompetent Gamefreak decisions for Gameplay. The only place they give a crap about it is VGC on Smeargle, which was already covered by the "Darkrai Only" clause, so every other nerf to the move did nothing besides affect a Mythical Pokemon that has never been legal in a format Gamefreak (pretends it) cares about anyway.

What results is they broke the toy Smeargle was hogging and then gave it back to Darkrai who it was borrowed from after they took a hammer to it. The result is a Signature move that is probably the WORST in its category vs more distributed moves rather than the inverse they clearly go for with other comparables (Pyro Ball > Flare Blitz objectively, for a recent example)

Consider this: Dark Void is one of the cringiest moves ever designed in the series gameplay wise

 

[AztecCroc]

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/warne...s-patent-for-shadow-of-mordors-nemesis-system

Counterpoints:

1. Bandai's various attempts that got labelled as invalid (loading screen minigames, enemy horde fights like Dynasty Warriors).
2. AI systems aren't game mechanics.
3. What they were actually able to patent wasn't nearly as broad as riding your monsters, capturing things with throwable items, or fighting battles in the main game area.

 

[Magcargo]

I genuinely consider the Dark Void nerfs to be Top 5 Most idiotic/incompetent Gamefreak decisions for Gameplay. The only place they give a crap about it is VGC on Smeargle, which was already covered by the "Darkrai Only" clause, so every other nerf to the move did nothing besides affect a Mythical Pokemon that has never been legal in a format Gamefreak (pretends it) cares about anyway.

What results is they broke the toy Smeargle was hogging and then gave it back to Darkrai who it was borrowed from after they took a hammer to it. The result is a Signature move that is probably the WORST in its category vs more distributed moves rather than the inverse they clearly go for with other comparables (Pyro Ball > Flare Blitz objectively, for a recent example)

It got nerfed too much, but Void in general was kinda fucking crazy in doubles if you just thought about the odds of hitting 1 Pokemon, let alone 2. Now its a coinflip vs both, so its a 75% chance to extract value. This is still high , but comparable to sleep powder, trading consistency for raw reward. Before, I believe it was a A 96% chance to extract value, with the ludicrous upside of sleeping both mons + not even having counterplay like safety goggles. I think the nerf was fine, though I also think the way sleep is balanced in general is somewhat poor.

 

[pika pal]

It got nerfed too much, but Void in general was kinda fucking crazy in doubles if you just thought about the odds of hitting 1 Pokemon, let alone 2. Now its a coinflip vs both, so its a 75% chance to extract value. This is still high , but comparable to sleep powder, trading consistency for raw reward. Before, I believe it was a A 96% chance to extract value, with the ludicrous upside of sleeping both mons + not even having counterplay like safety goggles. I think the nerf was fine, though I also think the way sleep is balanced in general is somewhat poor.

This is all well and good for me if not for the fact that, again, the move is literally only useable by a Pokemon that's banned from the only formats Gamefreak pretends to care about balancing. What reason does the casual-only Mythical Pokemon have to have a use-deficient signature move if it's already locked to it?

 

[A_Wild_Noob_Appeared!]

My unpopular opinion is that the anti-Sketch change was more egregiously bad than the accuracy drop. Having a hard-coded balance band-aid which applies to only a single move is just a very unclean design. It's like if they decided to make Xerneas less broken by making Power Herb not work on Geomancy. If Smeargle's Sketch gimmick is mostly fine except for one move which is also egregiously broken on its native learner, it seems more reasonable from a game design perspective to target that move than to set a precedent for more hard-coded exceptions.

I also don't think "it's Mythical only" necessarily works out in the long run. Having a subset of Pokemon permanently isolated because of some marketing gimmick long ago is a bit silly, and the new games are trending towards having Mythicals being easier to obtain (Deoxys is obtained the same as any other legendary in ORAS, some can be obtained without an event in spinoff games and transferred). I don't think it's super unlikely that at some point more Pokemon which were designated as Mythical at some point will be obtainable simply in-game, and that both devs and players will want them to be allowed into VGC as a result. At that point, it would be necessary to confront the topic of Dark Void on Darkrai.

That being said, I think that the best decision would have been to just ban Dark Void from competitive formats instead (along with evasion and OHKO moves). Given that bans on the latter two were a long time coming anyways (Fissure Ting-Lu got popular in VGC at some point and I don't think anybody enjoyed that), it's pretty clearly the best compromise between casual and competitive players. It was banned in VGC in Gen 5, so it's not unprecedented.

 

[ant4456]

This is all well and good for me if not for the fact that, again, the move is literally only useable by a Pokemon that's banned from the only formats Gamefreak pretends to care about balancing. What reason does the casual-only Mythical Pokemon have to have a use-deficient signature move if it's already locked to it?

This doesn't resonate with me for for a few reasons

Even in casual play, I think there should be at least *some* correlation in expected power level to what it is. Dark Void is an insanely busted move, more busted than probably any other signature move ever made especially for legendaries, including something like Thousand Arrows, Judgement, etc. etc.

I think it's weird that Darkrai gets something that is so absurdly busted, even in casual play. It's always represented as a midtier ass mythical let alone in the grand scheme of legendaries, a bit above the level of something like Meloetta, but not much above a Keldeo.

Why does it get to just have an insanely busted move from a gameplay-worldbuilding-gamefeel sense? Probably the most busted move in the game?

If it was just decently high accuracy sleep on one Pokemon, then maybe I'd agree because that's not actually that unique but would still be good considering how fast Darkrai is, but Doubles exists and it still exists in casual play, and then it becomes indisputably like the most broken move imaginable.

I think Darkrai straight up just doesn't deserve to have such a busted move

 

[Coronis]

This doesn't resonate with me for for a few reasons

Even in casual play, I think there should be at least *some* correlation in expected power level to what it is. Dark Void is an insanely busted move, more busted than probably any other signature move ever made especially for legendaries, including something like Thousand Arrows, Judgement, etc. etc.

I think it's weird that Darkrai gets something that is so absurdly busted, even in casual play. It's always represented as a midtier ass mythical let alone in the grand scheme of legendaries, a bit above the level of something like Meloetta, but not much above a Keldeo.

Why does it get to just have an insanely busted move from a gameplay-worldbuilding-gamefeel sense? Probably the most busted move in the game?

If it was just decently high accuracy sleep on one Pokemon, then maybe I'd agree because that's not actually that unique but would still be good considering how fast Darkrai is, but Doubles exists and it still exists in casual play, and then it becomes indisputably like the most broken move imaginable.

I think Darkrai straight up just doesn't deserve to have such a busted move

Cos Darkrai is awesome and has awesome lore and awesome design so needed an awesome move.

Then Smeargle had to go and ruin everything.

But anyway they should’ve taken inspiration from PBR for link battles and the whole thing could’ve been avoided.

In Pokémon Battle Revolution, if sleep clause is active, Dark Void will only put one foe to sleep and will be forced to miss for the other.

Like surely just have sleep clause, no?

 

[Worldie]

Sleep clause was in a single game and never used again because it's a ruling that alters a game mechanic.

They do not want the game to work differently in pve than it does in pvp. Which is actually a reasonable thing, there should be no particular reason for which a sleep move would "only work on a single pokemon at time".


That said, Darkrai is a Mythical, mythical pokemon are literally never legal for pvp (bar non relevant for fun events) and they never remotely cared for balance. We all know that the singular reason for Dark Void nerf was Smeargle and if DV Smeargle never picked up usage it wouldn't have been touched. Everything else is just copium.

 

[Ironmage]

Given much of Darkrai's lore is that it's not in control of its power, Dark Void also affecting allies would be a flavourful nerf to its doubles performance and I'd like to have seen it tried before making the move useless in all contexts.

 

[Pikachu315111]

Counterpoints:

1. Bandai's various attempts that got labelled as invalid (loading screen minigames, enemy horde fights like Dynasty Warriors).
2. AI systems aren't game mechanics.
3. What they were actually able to patent wasn't nearly as broad as riding your monsters, capturing things with throwable items, or fighting battles in the main game area.

1. Those patents weren't invalidated, they expired.

2. After looking up countless places trying to define game mechanics and coming up with tons of answers (which lands "are ai systems a game mechanic" either into yes, no, or maybe); I'm going to say in the eye of people who approve patents it all falls into the same category. As long as it's a unique feature within the game, be it a mechanic, system or whatever, it can be patented. Now what counts a "unique" is debatable, though at least one rule is probably it's something no other game had done before it.

3. So that get's into Pokemon's patents. And I think Nintendo & TPC are relying on the VERY specifics of the patents (which could let other games slide):

Catching Monsters In A Throwable Ball: What other monster taming games (that are trying to not be pokeclones) do you know besides Pokemon and Palworld that specifically uses a throwable ball to catch the monster which go inside the ball and can be stored and sent out of said ball? If you describe that before Palworld most everyone would say that's something very specific to Pokemon. BTW, the other patent relating to sneaking around in an overworld is pretty much the same deal, the issue is the object being thrown being a ball.
Riding Captured Monsters: This one is more dubious, though question: was there another game before Legends: Arceus where you could quickly switch between mounts. Because that's what the patent is for, not riding a mount, but able to press a button and you instantly change to being on another mount without having to get off the previous. Note this would be different from having a mount that morphs into a different forms, it has to be mounts that are considered all different individuals and you're just instantaneously able to swap to riding the other with a button press.

Annoying nitpicks? Yes. But when two titans start to fight little things all around them are going to get trampled.

Given much of Darkrai's lore is that it's not in control of its power, Dark Void also affecting allies would be a flavourful nerf to its doubles performance and I'd like to have seen it tried before making the move useless in all contexts.

In that case, couldn't they now just change the effect of it affecting both Pokemon in a Double Battle be just something only connected to Darkrai, while if another Pokemon uses it (specifically Smeargle via using Sketch) it's only single target?

Though, now that it just can't be copied by Sketch, does that mean next time Darkrai is in the spotlight they may adjust Dark Void to being 80% again?

 

[AztecCroc]

Catching Monsters In A Throwable Ball: What other monster taming games (that are trying to not be pokeclones) do you know besides Pokemon and Palworld that specifically uses a throwable ball to catch the monster which go inside the ball and can be stored and sent out of said ball? If you describe that before Palworld most everyone would say that's something very specific to Pokemon. BTW, the other patent relating to sneaking around in an overworld is pretty much the same deal, the issue is the object being thrown being a ball.

Starbound, The Binding of Isaac, Ark. It's not a main mechanic in any of them but it is a thing you can do.

Riding Captured Monsters

Also Ark again, probably more I can't think of off the top of my head.

 

[Sonikku A]

It's like if they decided to make Xerneas less broken by making Power Herb not work on Geomancy

Write that down, WRITE THAT DOWN!!!!

 

[Pikachu315111]

Starbound, The Binding of Isaac, Ark. It's not a main mechanic in any of them but it is a thing you can do.

First, monster catching/taming is not the main mechanic of those games.

Second, with Starbound and Ark their capturing items are "Pods" (Capture Pod and Cryopod, respectively) and look more box-like. Yes, this matters for the patent that Nintendo is using. Palworld uses "Pal Spheres", both the shape and even the group name mirror "Poke Balls".

Third, for Binding of Isaac the item I think you're talking about is "Ball of Bandages" with the description "Gotta lick 'em all" and summons an orbital familiar. A few things. 1, while it is a ball it's made of bandages and the name doesn't mirror "Poke Balls" like "Pal Spheres" do. Second it's not used to capture a monster, when you use it it spawns one. Third with the description I think it can safely get away with being parody if the first two things wasn't enough to let it slide. And if you're talking about all other objects that summon a Familiar (or if there's one I didn't see which does let you catch a monster), none other I see are in the shape or style of the Poke Ball.

EDIT: Thank you DrPumpkinz for pointing to the correct item. The Friendly Ball, as noted, is an overt reference and, as I said in my final point with the Ball of Bandages, would likely fall under parody if ever brought to question.

Also Ark again, probably more I can't think of off the top of my head.

I tried reading Ark's method of riding creatures and it looks fairly more complicated than Legend: Arceus (and I don't know whether you're able to quick change between mounts, which is the most important part of the patent).

Though, to be fair, it doesn't sound like PalWorld lets you do that either. If anything PalWorld's riding mechanic more copies Ark's needing the make the right saddle/gear and having to have the creature be on the overworld to mount it. So I have no idea what Nintendo/TPC lawyers think that patent is going to do for them in this case.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

Third, for Binding of Isaac the item I think you're talking about is "Ball of Bandages" with the description "Gotta lick 'em all" and summons a orbital familiar. A few things. 1, while it is a ball it's made of bandages and the name doesn't mirror "Poke Balls" like "Pal Spheres" do. Second it's not used to capture a monster, when you use it it spawns one. Third with the description I think it can safely get away with being parody if the first two things wasn't enough to let it slide. And if you're talking about all other objects that summon a Familiar (or if there's one I didn't see which does let you catch a monster), none other I see are in the shape or style of the Poke Ball.

Nah, they're talking about the Friendly Ball. It's a very overt reference to Pokemon.