• Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    At this point it would be better for nintendo to buy palworld from the delveloper and make pokemon multiversal with palworld existing in an alternate universe.

    That way they could cash in on the massive success, separate it from their actual pokemon IP all whilst appeasing fans of palworld by keeping the game alive.

    • Red_October@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      10 months ago

      You seem to think they would put any value in appeasing fans of Palworld. They’re not even interested in appeasing their own fans. If they could publicly behead Palworld for all it’s fans to see they’d do it just to send a message.

      • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Absorb the business or kill it. Either way, nintendo won’t lose sales to palworld.

        Its the best move. Fighting it in court is just going to make the pokemon company look bad and if the news goes viral it will lose them money eventually as people move on from pokemon. Its almost 30 years old now. Nothing lasts forever.

      • willis936@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Palworld didn’t plagiarize them. This is what the kids call a nothingburger.

        Obviously there are loads of similar designs, but in a way that indicates illegal asset stealing? That’s a different question, and so-called “lazy design” aping on other creations doesn’t qualify as actual theft unless it can be explicitly proven.

        More grimly, it is a big corporation trying to squash an upstart competitor and suppress art. If they succeed then it is truly dystopian and a sign that we need more legal protections against overzealous copyright litigators.

      • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I didnt k ow about this. Just read about it now. Wow. Really interesting. I want to try the Japanese super mario bros 2 now haha.

          • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            From what ive read, doki doki panic was a seperate game and was reskinned to become what the western world got as super mario bros 2. Japan had a different super mario bros 2 game that was built using the original game engine.

            One key difference was that in the western version mario picked up and threw enemies but in the japan game mario jumped on enemiea like in the original.

            • discostjohn@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Oh no way, I didn’t know that. When you said you wanted to try the Japanese Super Mario 2, I thought you were just referring to Doki Doki Panic.

              Now I really want to play the Japanese Super Mario 2 as well.

              • Joey@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                10 months ago

                The Japanese Mario 2 was released outside of Japan on the Super Nintendo in the Super Mario All-Stars game. It’s known as “Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels” on that cartridge.

      • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Actually, pokemon is owned by nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures. It’s a joint ownership. Look it up.

        Palworld didn’t steal their IP. They very closely mimicked the IP and potentially with just enough legal distinction to claim its not infringement.

        Your analogy would be much more relevant if it was i own a bike company and another company started selling bikes that were extremely similar to my design which disrupted my sales.

        In which casez yes i absolutely would buy out the other bike company before i lost too much business and either close it down or absorb it into my own business. This is not a terrible idea its a fairly common business practice.

        But ok…