Palworld Under 'Investigation' As Pokémon Company Issues Statement

They dont have enough. Game is not even close to Pokemon games. They only have creatures that look similar.
Not the names, not the gameplay etc.

Grabs popcorn 🍿 and sits down. This should be fun…………..

There's a little statement in that salt.

nothing will happen... this is just stupidity from the unhinged Pokémon community... they are clowns that cry over the stupidest made up controversies

Nintendo doesn't own the intellectual property of every animal ever created and because that isn't the case Nintendo hasn't been sued by the dragon quest devs

regardless of what you people on the internet believe game freak doesn't own the rights to dogs and cats and crabs... they just don't so get over it

plus even if they did, which they don't, copyright law was originally only supposed to last for several years not forever into perpetuity

copyright law is supposed to encourage innovation not stifle it

I am no expert on copyright law, but from the little I do know, I have not seen anything that the Pokémon company will succeed in.

They are not copies, more inspired by, and from a legal standpoint, that will be OK.

And if I was to guess, this will have already been investigated and settled pre-launch.

The statement from the Pokémon company reads more like "stop messaging us" than "we are going to sue them"

Cherish and nurture? Money and Money

I doubt they do anything. A loss in court would sap all the imaginary power they have. It's better for them to have the illusion of "we could sue" instead of a precedent set by a loss. The flood gates would open and we would see some true pokemon knock offs.

The only argument they have is the art which is nearly impossible to prove was "stolen."

What about Digimon? I’d say that’s closer to Pokémon than this and that’s been around for about 20 years now or so.

This should be more about mods than the game in itself. Let’s say you put a video on youtube where there’s a pikachu being beaten with a pickaxe and enslaved. They don’t want that, hence those words about nurturing pokemon.

I have to admit the success of this game annoys me to death and I’m still trying to process exactly why. It has to be this mix of vulgarity, pointlessness of mechanics that are just left to the player instead of being tuned, the fact that a broken game is having this success at a time when tens of thousands of devs that probably made great games are losing their job and so on.

What I really think is that this game yes, can give you some fun, but there are so many cheaper and definitely better, more satisfying “fun” alternatives that the point of playtesting this mess is beyond me. The only rational explanation I can find is that the whole phenomenon is just viral replication of what the youtubers are doing, probably with the not-so-secret hope to become the next famous streamer. I feel this “gaming subculture” very far from what gaming means to me.

Plus some morbid fantasies should be really kept in check.

Anyone else find it fascinating that people get up in arms about the look of the game but no one cares about games that copy game-style whole cloth? There is a whole genre of games called 'souls-like' for straight up copying the gameplay and style of FromSoft games, and people love those. Like there is nothing original about Lies of P, but there are zero calls attacking that game.

That statement is so cringe.

@The-Chosen-one the gameplay could be identical and still not be a legal issue.

What Nintendo is likely to be investigating is if any of the assets used in the game were lifted from Pokemon assets and modified. I doubt that was the case but it’s worth looking into for such a large company with the finances to spend the time on it.

The internet outrage is, imo, absurd, but it’s Nintendo’s prerogative to look into this. We seen big lawsuits over way less. Anyone remember the lawsuit over using copyrighted images in a small component of the Resident Evil 4 logo?

@The-Chosen-one that is still enough if artwork is decided to be plagiarised or derivative for the sole purpose of making money then yes that is enough to win if a court decides it. Regardless if it does go to court or not it is still a solid enough argument that they were created similarly enough for the very reason of getting noticed and selling more even if the games themselves play nothing alike.

They don't have much of a leg to stand on with the whole AI argument being debunked. It originates with someone reacting to a Buzzfeed article, of all things. That and Steam requires devs to list whether or not devs use AI for game development. Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. proved you need more than similarities for a case, and Fighter's History was way closer to SF2 than Palworld is to Pokemon. They'll likely lose, and those court fees could've gone to TPC actually making a better product.

Maybe get a better studio to develop your games instead of being jealous about a new small company doing a WAY BETTER game than Gamefreak
Stupid investigation with no reason whatsoever so I hope they lose hard.

Nintendo is in for massive backlash if they take down Palworld.

@InvaderFromSpace eh? I don’t think you get it. By your logic there would be 1 driving game, 1 fighting game, 1 shooter. Because everything else would be a copy.

I personally find Pokémon games (the more linear ones like Sword/Shield) significantly more enjoyable than Palworld but I am certain there is a place for both to be successful. Palworld can be fill the gap in Xbox and PC that Nintendo's games leave. The new more powerful Nintendo hardware should push GameFreak to improve their development overall.

'Under investigation'? What are they the Pokémon police? Go away with your litigious nonsense.

Repost of my comment on Nintendo life:

Unless they have two copies of the exact same game with only one tiny variation. But sell both at full price and call one copy brown edition and the other magenta. They haven't truely copied Pokemon.

Can't tell if they are angry someone did it better or that they left money on the table because they want to remain exclusive.