22nd September 2024, 2:59 PM
Also, and I just have to add a few things... Nintendo are being complete hypocrites here. Look, Palworld isn't really my cup of tea. I didn't get the game, but I DO know it's very distinctly different from how a typical pokemon game plays. It's a survival-construction game, like your Seven Days to Die or your Mine's Craft, and everything having to do with that. You fight alongside these critters... with guns that are... look the guns are very obviously not going to make gun manufacturers happy with how similar they are but... games have been getting away with ripping off gun designs but just calling them something else for decades now so I doubt that's really going to change. Point is, this is evolving off the ideas of pokemon, not just straight "stealing" the game concept, but more to the point, Nintendo does this ALL the time. Let me list a few direct examples.
Firstly, that first Nintendo patent suit, they sued a company over the concept of using a touch screen as an analog stick. That's purely a software implementation, from the very company that had to settle out of court for using a touch screen as a game control device in the first place.
We can ignore Donkey Kong, because it's resemblance to King Kong is a copyright issue, not a patent issue, and well, Universal lost that copyright lawsuit anyway.
But, Balloon Fight is Joust. It just is. In fact, Balloon Fight has FAR more in common with Joust than Palworld has in common with Pokemon (in terms of game mechanic design).
Hey remember Devil World? That's Pac-Man. That's very clearly Pac-Man. Now with both of these examples, did Nintendo add onto the idea? Sure. Balloon fight added an "adventure mode" that scrolled from right to left in a long level, and Devil World added scrolling around up and down and left and right with a little devil guy in hot pants ordering little imp things to do it. But, clearly Nintendo doesn't think that's a good argument in defense of "stealing" a game design concept.
Donkey Kong? Hey, I CAN mention something here. Space Panic. Donkey Kong is Space Panic, but with a jump button added.
In any case, any argument you make in favor of Nintendo can't bring up the art design. That isn't relevant in a patent case. I won't be bothering to defend the pal's appearance in any case. Just the raw mechanics, and the raw mechanics were already in existence before pokemon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game
Just take a look at the history. The usage of tiny balls is a matter of art, not mechanic. The taming and catching of monsters is the important thing. But, if that's what matters to you, Enix had already invented that idea in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotrek
There you go. Catching monsters in little capsules and sending them out to fight, right there in 1994. Done. Game set match, Nintendo can't claim a patent.
Firstly, that first Nintendo patent suit, they sued a company over the concept of using a touch screen as an analog stick. That's purely a software implementation, from the very company that had to settle out of court for using a touch screen as a game control device in the first place.
We can ignore Donkey Kong, because it's resemblance to King Kong is a copyright issue, not a patent issue, and well, Universal lost that copyright lawsuit anyway.
But, Balloon Fight is Joust. It just is. In fact, Balloon Fight has FAR more in common with Joust than Palworld has in common with Pokemon (in terms of game mechanic design).
Hey remember Devil World? That's Pac-Man. That's very clearly Pac-Man. Now with both of these examples, did Nintendo add onto the idea? Sure. Balloon fight added an "adventure mode" that scrolled from right to left in a long level, and Devil World added scrolling around up and down and left and right with a little devil guy in hot pants ordering little imp things to do it. But, clearly Nintendo doesn't think that's a good argument in defense of "stealing" a game design concept.
Donkey Kong? Hey, I CAN mention something here. Space Panic. Donkey Kong is Space Panic, but with a jump button added.
In any case, any argument you make in favor of Nintendo can't bring up the art design. That isn't relevant in a patent case. I won't be bothering to defend the pal's appearance in any case. Just the raw mechanics, and the raw mechanics were already in existence before pokemon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster-taming_game
Just take a look at the history. The usage of tiny balls is a matter of art, not mechanic. The taming and catching of monsters is the important thing. But, if that's what matters to you, Enix had already invented that idea in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotrek
There you go. Catching monsters in little capsules and sending them out to fight, right there in 1994. Done. Game set match, Nintendo can't claim a patent.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)