47
The Pokemon Company releases a statement regarding Palworld: Inquiries Regarding Other Companies’ Games
(corporate.pokemon.co.jp)
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
47 points (91.2% liked)
Games
16926 readers
1786 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don’t see Nintendo/Game Freak doing something about Palword. Due to Palworld's first trailer release two years ago. So if Nintendo/Game Freak was going to do something about Palworld. They had two years to do it.
They can only demand palworld to not advertise it as "pokemon with gun", otherwise they have no case against the uninspired monster design.
I wonder. Does that also mean Fromsoft has a case against games marketing themselves as soulslikes?
They can try, nintendo never did, doubt they will win, and cost them the decades of good will they've gained. The genre name is either a part of the title mixed with the word clone, like, lite, or a portmanteau like Metroidvania, so it's not 100% case.
That's why Palworld did not mentioned Pokemon on the steam page and the trailer.
Don't give Nintendo or Konami ideas about Metroidvanias...
Jokes aside, IMO its a common term and like has been a thing for a long time, roguelike as an example
It's also good for business. If someone comes in not knowing about Souls games and starts seeing it, they'll wonder why it's called that.
I played both Metroid and Castlevania when I was a kid so I knew where those came from. I quit gaming for a decade or so and didn't know anything about Souls-like games when I got back. I started seeing it everywhere and it made me curious. Now I'm a fan of From and games like what they put out.
Can you imagine the ego stroking it must be to have an entire genre named after your work?
They probably could have had a case against the first game to market itself as such, but I think once the terminology gets utilized as a "common term", you can't do anything. It's why Nintendo in the 80s and 90s was so fucking adamant on pushing parents away from calling any and every home game console a Nintendo
Fromsoft would have 0 ground if they wanted to today, but honestly, again, I think it's one of those things thats such a pedestal that there would be no reason to go after it.
Imagine what the developers of Rogue must feel. Games in that vein are still called Rogue-likes 43 years later
pokemon doesn't own the concept of monster colectors
The accusation isn't about the concept but the artwork.
Pokémon doesn't own the concept of cute magical anime animals either. Infact I'm pretty sure it's a common anime trope.
If they could do shit about this, Digimon and Yokai Watch would not exist.
Never said they did.
Pokemon doesn't own the idea of bad drawing either.
Not sure where that come from but okay.
Sent with my Samsung Note 20 ultra 5G.
It’s hard to feel any sympathy for them since they pretty much copied Pokémon another, older game.
https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/b8ec9f1d-069e-4c81-b7c3-52ff6d531e98.webp
They didn't directly take BoTW's sound track and put it in. The most they did is use very similar concepts. Which is legal.
INAL and it's been ages i studied copyright law and it's also depend on country(in this case, it's japan company vs japan company), but plagiarism only catch anything on the surface, they have no reach on the concept or idea or thought itself. The work itself also have to be very, very close to the original artwork, otherwise it can considered derivative and is protected by copyright law. In this case, Palworld have their own idea and twist on their monster even though it looks like the original work they copied, and the gameplay are mostly unfamiliar from the original work. They make it close enough to evoke the same feeling people have toward pokemon, but different enough to get away with it.
This is why Nintendo did not try anything against Genshin, even though Genshin took BOTW and add some of their idea. And this is also why you can film your own version of lion king, but the character is all bugs or something.
Personally i think Pokemon Company will not take action, the statement could just be something to make the fans stop bothering them. But i'd like to proven wrong.