Nintendo suing Palworld

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

the proof is your purchase; if you sign up for a service and the terms of use are "by using this service you agree", and you use the service, you have legally agreed. even if you SAY you disagree, you are still using the service. you legally are bound by the ToS. please learn the law.

it's true that people don't read TOS/EULA, but that's not the fault of the company. it's true that many companies write obscenely long ones to deter the impatient consumer from reading them, but ignorance of law is not an excuse; if you break contract, you are at fault, even if you didn't know it. this is how the law works.

You know most of the EULAs aren't legally binding, and in most cases not only can't be enforced but are illegal in the terms. Live services they can refuse you service certainly, but i'm not talking live services.

Though i'm sure you're the type to agree with Disney that if you try a free 1 month trial of Disney+ then you have to relegate all legal matters to the end of time through arbitration through Disney and not sue them...

the proof is your purchase;

Then i will never purchase. Problem solved!

 

[MistHunter]

No matter how you look at it, there will be a before and after, no matter who wins.
...such an anecdote is already a prediction of what is going to happen (a picture is worth a thousand words)...
a change worth considering is coming... (you can interpret this as you wish)

 

[ATenderLad]

Nope. you got it totally wrong. DEI is the result of pushing unqualified people into the roles they shouldn't be in.

Off-topic, but to clarify for anyone who reads this, DEI initiatives, going back to affirmative action, are efforts to fix the generally prejudiced hiring practices common in America for most of it's history. It was never a meritocracy, to be clear, and while quotas aren't a perfect solution, they are an attempt, always preferable to doing nothing.

 

[Noon]

when I first heard this, I thought it was because palworld was really creepy sounding (slavery, guns, and poaching pals?) and thought nintendo sued them for something frivolous because they were worried they’d get lumped in and blamed for not doing anything when angry parents starting complaining about that “Creepy Online Pokémon game?” That’s just how I felt when I heard it. I mean Palworld kinda sounds like it’s made by the cartel.

I mean, I can’t remember, but isn’t Nexomon and Coromon on the switch? Why just palworld?

 

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

are efforts to fix the generally prejudiced hiring practices common in America for most of it's history. It was never a meritocracy

But i don't intend to debate the issue to length, only that to me it looks like a total failure.

It is said, the road to hell is paved, with good intentions.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

when I first heard this, I thought it was because palworld was really creepy sounding (slavery, guns, and poaching pals?) and thought nintendo sued them for something frivolous because they were worried they’d get lumped in and blamed for not doing anything when angry parents starting complaining about that “Creepy Online Pokémon game?” That’s just how I felt when I heard it. I mean Palworld kinda sounds like it’s made by the cartel.

I mean, I can’t remember, but isn’t Nexomon and Coromon on the switch? Why just palworld?

There are a couple of possible reasons why Palworld is being targeted.
1.) Competition. I think this one is less likely as Palworld plays more like Ark Survival Evolved on crack than a Pokemon game. Outside of disgruntled Pokemon veterans, I don't think Palworld is poaching that many players from Pokemon. It more likely has it's own crowd.
2.) Fear of brand confusion, as pointed out by the Moon Channel video earlier in the thread. Some pals are similar enough to the Pokemon that they're likely inspired by that it could cause brand confusion and sully Pokemon's reputation among parents. Example: if a Pokemon fan's mom goes to buy him that green monkey he loves so much, only to see a green monkey holding a realistic gun, she might conclude that Pokemon is inappropriate for her son because she thinks the gun monkey is from Pokemon. Lots of parents aren't worried about that, but enough are that Nintendo doesn't wanna lose that paranoid soccer mom money.

 

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

There are a couple of possible reasons why Palworld is being targeted.

It's also been suggested they want to pull a Disney, and prevent a 'more popular' version of something they make from gaining foothold.

Though Nintendo was more than happy to throw their entire fanbase and customer base over to sell the wii to grandmas and casual players, and have refused to make a game like palworld or with more adult themes or ways to interact, vs capture and collect remakes for all of eternity.

Nintendo is also a little too strict with what they think can or can't happen to their properties, and if it isn't represented just right you get them mad.

 

[RageBurner]

The problem is, has been and always will be money.

Nintendo, in their feverish paranoia, rationalizes that people that play Palworld will abandon Pokémon or not bother to buy it and somehow hurt their current and future profits; that is their rationale for killing (or trying to kill) projects like AM2R and such (as if people are slobbering over the chance to play Metroid 2 on the GB and would, if the fan work didn't exist... yeah, right).

Of course, the veneer of "wanting to protect our intellectual property" will always make a wrong thing seem better, and it is the defense they always default to. I'm not privy to the specifics of the legal system or how patents work there, but I do know that the Japanese are a culture that thrives, for better or worse, on brand loyalty, and as such people will be more willing to defer to their whims in Japan than elsewhere, as they don't have nearly as much clout in other regions of the world, comparatively speaking.

In short, Nintendo is anti-consumer, doesn't allow for fair competition (which becomes even more apparent when many indie monster catching efforts, not just Palworld, are more fun and better realized than what they have been churning out for decades now), and as such, I hope they lose this lawsuit and many more to come.

 

[Waffles]

It's always so damn frustrating seeing Nintendo do stuff like that.

They have something other companies would kill for: an endless supply of good will as the makers of our childhoods, and then they act in the most antagonistic way possible just to secure a few bucks and to "protect" characters and IPs so deeply intertwined with their brand and company as to make them impossible to mistake for anything else.

They can't live off us +30 years olds forever. They are gonna need younger fans to keep afloat, but they are not gonna get them by blocking them at every turn whenever they want to know what the games mom and dad used to play were like.

 

[RageBurner]

It's always so damn frustrating seeing Nintendo do stuff like that.

They have something other companies would kill for: an endless supply of good will as the makers of our childhoods, and then they act in the most antagonistic way possible just to secure a few bucks and to "protect" characters and IPs so deeply intertwined with their brand and company as to make them impossible to mistake for anything else.

They can't live off us +30 years olds forever. They are gonna need younger fans to keep afloat, but they are not gonna get them by blocking them at every turn whenever they want to know what the games mom and dad used to play were like.

They saved the industry once, when the night was at its darkest... now they very well may doom it by acting the way they do.

 

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

They can't live off us +30 years olds forever. They are gonna need younger fans to keep afloat, but they are not gonna get them by blocking them at every turn whenever they want to know what the games mom and dad used to play were like.

You make 3 categories of games. Super young 4-10 (and thus diverse gameplay but relatively easy) for children, the usual range of Nintendo games 10-30 (Easy to learn, hard to master, long retention games), and then you make some games for the more adult crowd that's a little more gritty or mentally challenging, a bit more niche but 'what if' scenarios of if bowser won in X series of games or Mario was flung 10 years forward and finds all of mushroom kingdom enslaved, or maybe Detective Pikachu with more gritty detective scenes and getting into psycological horror and human psyche games?

Making games indefinately for the 12-18 range is fine, as there will always be those kids. But you want it like Star Wars, where the parents introduce the franchises their kids and play together and encourage growth and fun, not something to be abandoned because they aren't interested in you anymore. It's the business model Disney and Lucas Film had once upon a time.

 

[MyNameIsJeff]

It's always so damn frustrating seeing Nintendo do stuff like that.

They have something other companies would kill for: an endless supply of good will as the makers of our childhoods, and then they act in the most antagonistic way possible just to secure a few bucks and to "protect" characters and IPs so deeply intertwined with their brand and company as to make them impossible to mistake for anything else.

They can't live off us +30 years olds forever. They are gonna need younger fans to keep afloat, but they are not gonna get them by blocking them at every turn whenever they want to know what the games mom and dad used to play were like.

You know that thing where you don't realize that something is old until someone points it out, like the Xbox 360 being almost 20 years old when you feel like it's only 10? I suspect that the suits at Nintendo don't fully grasp that a lot of parents of today grew up playing Pokemon and therefore know the difference between a Pal and a Pokemon, and suits are sometimes out of touch to begin with. That, and they also want the money of parents and grandparents who DO fit that description, who do still exist and are raising young kids.. Nintendo wants to be the family company, meaning they want EVERY family's money, and if there is even a hint of a chance that there could be brand confusion between Palwhatsits and Pokemans, they want to stomp out that possibility so that even the most ignorant of video games knows to buy their baby the correct plushie. I'm not saying it's right, just that I suspect that this is a factor in their decision to target Palworld.

 

[Strategist]

They saved the industry once, when the night was at its darkest... now they very well may doom it by acting the way they do.

Like that Dark Knight quote "you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain". Although even back then Nintendo had a bit of a anti-competitive, dictatorial style when it came to third party publishers. They've just expanded the scope of their legal team now that they have more money.

 

[Leon]

Like that Dark Knight quote "you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain". Although even back then Nintendo had a bit of a anti-competitive, dictatorial style when it came to third party publishers. They've just expanded the scope of their legal team now that they have more money.

Well, nintendo does have alot of ties to organized crime, and gunpei yokoi's sudden death 1 day before his business went live is a bit suspicious if you ask me.

 

[DevilBusterAkemi]

Off-topic, but to clarify for anyone who reads this, DEI initiatives, going back to affirmative action, are efforts to fix the generally prejudiced hiring practices common in America for most of it's history. It was never a meritocracy, to be clear, and while quotas aren't a perfect solution, they are an attempt, always preferable to doing nothing.

exactly; the US was NEVER a meritocracy and the pushback against "DEI" and "woke" things is just racist/sexist people using it as an excuse to continue outdated thinking.

 

[Strategist]

exactly; the US was NEVER a meritocracy and the pushback against "DEI" and "woke" things is just racist/sexist people using it as an excuse to continue outdated thinking.

I will say that Disney's and Amazon's policies requiring a certain % of minority characters in any of their creative properties goes beyond the scope of what affirmative action was in the 80s-90s. Affirmative action was more of a requirement to interview and prioritize minority candidates in employment scenarios. Now it has crossed over to the creative realm and they are dictating that the racial composition of shows reflect the racial composition of the United States. Which is why you see Asian and Black elves in fantasy shows nowadays. It doesn't bother me personally but there is noticeable difference.

 

[Ikagura]

Well, nintendo does have alot of ties to organized crime, and gunpei yokoi's sudden death 1 day before his business went live is a bit suspicious if you ask me.

This sounds a bit like a conspiracy because there's not really any solid proofs. Accidents can always happen.

 

[Leon]

This sounds a bit like a conspiracy because there's not really any solid proofs. Accidents can always happen.

The gunpei yokoi might be conspiracy, but the organized crime thing isn't, nintendo has historical ties to the yakuza, the only question is if they still do.

 

[DevilBusterAkemi]

I will say that Disney's and Amazon's policies requiring a certain % of minority characters in any of their creative properties goes beyond the scope of what affirmative action was in the 80s-90s. Affirmative action was more of a requirement to interview and prioritize minority candidates in employment scenarios. Now it has crossed over to the creative realm and they are dictating that the racial composition of shows reflect the racial composition of the United States. Which is why you see Asian and Black elves in fantasy shows nowadays. It doesn't bother me personally but there is noticeable difference.

dictating fiction is different, but i think people should have the creative freedom to write whatever they want.

 

[Bakuma1997]

Two facts: Videogames are a Bussiness and Sales Speak

If they lose...well, happy ending
But if they win, people's already waning trust will shatter, people will make clear enough is enough by not buying the Switch 2 or any new content from Nintendo

 

[Teone]

Hey pals,

I'm not from the US and I'm not the best person to say anything about their politics in a forum like this, so I'm not leaving this message as if I was agreeing or disagreeing with anyone of you here.

This discussion is getting heat and people are already losing the point of dialogue, turning it into some personal dispute (?) and stuff like that. I know that it's impossible to avoid politics at some point of any serious discussion around companies etc, but I need to ask you all, please, to change your focus back to the playful aspect of this subject. (I'm tired so I don't know if my English came out properly ok......)

 

[Sayo]

Hey pals,

I'm not from the US and I'm not the best person to say anything about their politics in a forum like this, so I'm not leaving this message as if I was agreeing or disagreeing with anyone of you here.

This discussion is getting heat and people are already losing the point of dialogue, turning it into some personal dispute (?) and stuff like that. I know that it's impossible to avoid politics at some point of any serious discussion around companies etc, but I need to ask you all, please, to change your focus back to the playful aspect of this subject. (I'm tired so I don't know if my English came out properly ok......)

I understand but if you are going to delete my post might as well do away with the entire argument, thanks.

 

[Teone]

I understand but if you are going to delete my post might as well do away with the entire argument, thanks.

I left hidden the last two messages, from you and from alice, but I won't hide the previous ones from the public view for two reasons:

1) I believe that none of us mods are able to decide exactly which messages are actually crossing the line of "oh this is politics; this is not". Speaking for me, at least, it's impossible to separate politics from any imaginable subject, even the ones we would call as individual matters. Anyway, my opinion isn't important here but I'm sharing it just to exemplify why I won't, at least myself, try to choose between other messages to delete/hide

2) This is the most important, you used an "ad hominem" argument and nothing more. This is the actual reason why I considered to delete anything in the first place. I think your comment is the one that actually crossed any line here, not for being politic, but for being a comment merely about the character of another member or what they should or shouldn't do in their personal lives, like being here or not. And then you say that "because I don't want this site to be this or that". Like... I know we all have affection and expectations about this space, but... who are you, or me, to say who should or shouldn't be here? (except of course if we were replying to a nazi, transphobe or someone performin (?) hate speech as we addressed in the rules etc etc)

So, that's it, let's move on.

 

[Waffles]

I understand but if you are going to delete my post might as well do away with the entire argument, thanks.

That was my fault, actually.

I didn't see the argument had continued down below.

 

[starseeker300]

So what are some likely ramifications on the future of the gaming industry for one side or the other winning the lawsuit?