this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
3219 readers
197 users here now
The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community
For news, discussions and memes!
Community Rules
This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:
- No NSFW content
You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.
What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:
- Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
- Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
- Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
- Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
- Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.
If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.
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
and just like that, my temporary negative review just became permanent(at least until mechanics get changed back), Heavily against allowing bullying like this, especially broad patents like these. Nintendo doesn't own the tamed creature industry, despite what it thinks.
So you gave a negative review to a game that's more or less forced to make changes because of a different shitty company?
I put a negative review for a company making their game worse, because that's what they did.
The fact that they did it without a court decision saying "yes defo in the wrong here" didn't help the decision making process. Especially when it's clear that the patents are under selective enforcement.
I am firm in my decision, a game as big as palworld was, just bending over backwards to a patent bully like Nintendo doesn't deserve a good review, and nobody is going to change my mindset on that.
When the court hearing is decided, and if it's decided palworld isn't in violation, and they change the mechanics back again, I'll fix my review, until then my experience with the game was dampened so therefore the review stays.
"Allowing bullying"
You walk up to kids that got their face punched in on a playground and tell them to quit being a little bitch, too?
I don't think I understand your argument here.
I think a better comparison would be am I going to feel bad for the kid who got punched in the face with padding on, then decided that getting punched in the face was OK so they removed the padding. And the answer is firmly no.
To add clarification to better see what I mean:
The fact that they changed anything before legal proceedings finalized, with the fact that it's clear that what Nintendo is chasing after is being selectively enforced because other games have run the same mechanics, for example Ark survival evolved had the glider mechanic from a creature you tame long before Pokemon ever did, means that I lost most respect that I had for the studio. (disregarding the fact that they are known to abandon their IP before completion)
And honestly the fact that they are already working on the next game without this one being finished tells me all I need to know about whether or not they're going to fight this legal battle or not.
My fanboying over having an Ark x Pokémon game can only go so far, I'm not going to congratulate a company for bending over backwards to the playground bully, they had an amazing thing going, and I appreciate what they did, but they threw in the towel the moment Nintendo decided they didn't like it and as an effect it made their game worse and as such now has a review reflecting that