This is generally a good sign for the game. While not always, moving and consolidating publishing and development of a successful game is an indication you're going to invest heavily moving forward and want a bigger share of the profit then you were getting under the previous agreement.
Late stage cataplasm at it's finest! Select Button assumed all the risk and did all the work, and now that they overperformed and the game seems like a sure thing, the bigger fish is taking over and locking them out of future profits!
Not to wade into your argument, but to inject some perspective:
The 5 Switch title have sold 100 million units on Switch. Sword / Shield and Scarlet / violet sold 26 and 24 million. It's important to look at that holistically, as it shows that saturation isn't really that much of an issue when it comes to Pokémon. You can release a game every 16 months without much canalization.
Nintendo themselves have shown they think that 16 months is enough time between Pokémon games as to not impact sales. Palworld game out 10 months ago.
We can't know how many more people would have played Pokémon Switch games if Nintendo gave the games away for free to 30 million people, but I'm confident is saying "more". You can't ignore the fact that people had the option to try Palworld at no cost. It's like counting people who downloaded your free demo as "sales". What's important to ask is "are they going to play long enough that it might mean they don't buy a new Pokémon game when it comes out".
Palworld's concurrent users on Steam hovers around 25,000 now. While it's impossible to know what Pokémon's numbers look like, the important part is that 25,000 players after 10 months is not that impressive. That, combined with the fact that Nintendo already knows that people are more then willing to buy a new Pokémon game every 16 months, is hardly "scary". I think it's very difficult to argue that Nintendo feels the need for action, based on these facts.
I love Palworld. Was literally playing it before posting this. So I can say with confidence that it's nothing like Pokémon. It has almost zero resemblance to Pokémon, other then the creature catching mechanics. It's a 3rd person real time survival game with base building, very much in the style of ARC. Pokémon is a turn based RPG creature collector. Despite everyone on the internet comparing them, from a gameplay and marketing perspective, there is likely little to no overlap in player base.
If you were to compare it to a Pokémon game it only really shares core concepts with Arcus, which sold poorly. So we actually know for a fact that a large number of Pokémon fans are not interested in that playstyle.
So while you're both welcome to your opinions and I will offer nothing to counter either of them, you're entire argument is happening under the premise that Nintendo see's Palworld as a "Pokémon clone", something is absolutely is not, and that they feel there is overlap in player base, something that would be extremely difficult to argue is the case.
Nintendo is suing for patent infringement because they believe Palword violated technical patents that cover specific computer processes and algorithms around creature collection, not because they think it's "like Pokémon". Suing them for being too much like Pokémon is possible, but it would be a civil copyright case, not a patent case. If they were looking to "bully" someone, they could easily ask for BILLIONS in damages and punitives in civil court. Instead they are seeking $66,000 in damagers in patent court.
You are reading them wrong, or given they are all 100s of pages each, only reading the title.
The patents cover extremely specific CODE and computer processing methods, NOT game mechanics.
Here is an example:
"Next, processor 81 determines whether or not to end the game processing (step S136). Conditions for ending the game processing in step S136 above include, for example, a condition for ending the game processing being satisfied, or the user performing an operation to end the game processing. If processor 81 does not end the game processing, it returns to step S122 above and repeats the process, and if it ends the game processing, it ends the process according to the flowchart. Thereafter, the series of processes from step S122 to step S136 are repeatedly executed until it is determined in step S136 that the process is to end."
The patents are 100s of pages of that type of incredible technical data, not "oh we own tossing balls now". There are also 84 diagrams, flow chats, and logic maps that are not part of what's searchable on Google that you would need to get from the patent office in Japan to have any hope of understanding what's actually been patented.
The patents are for game code. The entire suit is an accusation of stolen code. There is literally no other issue at play.
Do you have a source for Nintendo's policy to not litigate unless the target has made a given amount of money, or for Adult Swim being located in China?
1) Please read post 31. Precedent doesn't apply to this case.
2) You can't patent a game mechanic, and you can't file for patent violation unless you own a patent and can show it was likely violated.
3) Play Cassette beasts, EvoCreo, Nexomon: Extinction or for that matter, Pocket Mortys. You'll quickly notice they are literally just Pokémon. Why isn't Nintendo suing them?
How about Pocket Incoming? That game has Pikachu in it, as well as Ash and Misty. It has direct clones of 100s of Pokémon, and plays exactly like Pokémon.
Because they didn't copy game code, the thing this case is about. It has nothing to do with the un-patentable ball throwing , which is in 100s of games. In Pocket Inc's case, the design patent on those characters expired 25 years ago and anyone can use them (as long as you change any of the names that are Trademarks, seeing that doesn't expire).
Like I'm saying in other post, you should really spend more time informing your opinion then arguing your incorrect assumptions.
The Patents Nintendo is suggesting Palworld violates have been jointly owned by Nintendo and TPC for up to 40 years. They are part of very large technical patents (the smallest is 255 pages long).
As is common in Japanese patent cases, Nintendo refiled for a new patent which, while is no way different from the one they already had, is narrowly defined and only includes the exact part the case is about.
This is a complicated issue. We really should be asking questions more and making statements less.
There is no way to set precedent, because in the court system this case is before precedent isn't really a thing.
Not every legal system in the world follows the same jurisprudence as US criminal law. In Japanese patent law, you follow the letter of the Patent Act as written. You can not introduce arguments that previous rulings should effect your case or the interpretation of the law. The patent system is completely removed from other civil law.
You also couldn't introduce a Japanese courts ruling for consideration in a US court.
I would very much encourage you to pause at the point to ask yourself if, based on the fact that you are arguing precedent when that doesn't even apply, if your opinion is informed enough that you should be making arguments, Do you understand the complex difference between the court system you are familiar with, and the largely isolated and vastly different courts of Japan?
Or should you instead be seeking additional information to inform your opinion and correct any other knowledge gaps you might have.
Palworld made, at a conservative estimate (given it's real hard to know how much they made from Game Pass), $164,000,000.00
So:
1) Can we just stop painting the company that made $164,000,000.00 off a single product as the little guys who need our support and protection?
2) Can we stop suggesting that asking for 0.0004% of the money they made off the game is some sort of bulling, or message, or statement, or anything other then a company legitimately protecting their patent?
They could have just sued them for elventy billion dollars in civil court, where you get to just make up a number and that sue for 10 times that in punitive, if they wanted to "bully" someone.
Instead they are asking for $66,000, that will be SPLIT TWO WAYS. So Nintendo is looking to get $33,000.
That is the revenue they currently make in ONE MINUTE AND 20 SECONDS.
<sigh>
And I guess just for the record, the injection isn't a big deal either. It should get lifted when you agree to pay the license fee for the patent you violated moving forward, which (based on what the lawsuit is asking for), is 1 US cent for every 3500 copies of the game sold.
Not to go on a rant here ... wait, no, I'm totally going to go on a rant.
The West, and the US specifically, have a unique relationship with capitalism. They have literally killed millions to defend it as an ideal, and hate nothing more then socialism as it's perceived "opposite". Except ... literally every time they witness capitalism working the way it SHOULD, they treat it like the most vial thing they have ever seen.
If you really love capitalism then as the richer company, Nintendo is ethically and morally superior, and they are obligated to crush the "worse" company for the good of everyone. It ensures that capital stays in the most capable hands, which should both lead to more job creation and "trickle down" quality of life to all! You fought wars for this! You just elected the guys who believe in this hook, line and sinker.
On the flip side, any time they see socialism, they eat it up! I saw Fox news, the most right wing private media outlet on the planet, run a "feel good" story about a restaurant owner who forbid tipping, but instead shares the night's profits with his employees. Everyone commented how great it was and how more people should do that.
Hate to tell you but ... that's Marxism. That's just flat out Marxism. You are praising Marxism.
You can do all the "gameplay elements" in literally 1000s of games. You catch creatures in games like Cassette Beasts, which is just Pokemon in every possible aspect, and there are games where riding on beasts is core to gameplay, like Ark. So what's up?
Well, for what seems like the billionth time ... you can't patent gameplay. What Nintendo is really saying is that the underlying systems (code) used to make these thing possible, and store data about how the creatures act or how their stats are stored, as in the flags for if they are ridable or not, were directly stolen by Polyword. It's also likely they are suggesting the "math" behind the catching of Pokémon based on health is too close to the math they are using. Can't patent that idea, but you sure as heck can patent an equation.
Before reacting to something like this, ask yourself some questions. Are there other games where you toss items to catch thing? Sure, tons. Are there games were you can catch things and ride them? Also a yes. So why is Nintendo not suing them?
That should help you to understand that you, and this small article on a game site with no staff who are legal experts, are missing some key information as to particulars of the case.
And that's fine. This is the exact right amount of information for a update on a game site. The onus is on you to seek out professional consensus before forming a strong opinion and arguing that opinion as if it was fact.
it's also important to note, for the PATENTS ARE EVIL crowd, that based on the total sales and the fact they are are suggesting 3 patents were violated, they are seeking about a penny for every 3,500(ish) games sold, per patent.
That is a completely reasonable licensing fee, not a doomsday device used to hinder innovation.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it's hard to translate the friendly, hopefully "teaching" vibe I'm trying to go for in typing. So please try and read what I'm saying in that light.
Ghost is literally a word in the dictionary. Ghosts are not real. We use words to identify objects and concepts. Words do not provide these objects and concepts any extra validity. Also Incel is in the dictionary, and I'm pretty sure that word originated with Incels.
You can trace the Etymology of self-censorship, and it leads to far right groups and incels. A good way to steel yourself against propaganda like this is to ask about something called "parallel ideology."
The people who talk about self-censorship, do they ever mention how likely the biggest example is how members of the LGBT+ community often have to write about straight characters because if they make them gay they face death treats and boycotts?
No, they just exclusively seem to be talking about how moving away from media dominated by the male gaze is actually a mortally bad thing because it's ... ummm ... what's a word people react strongly too? Oh, I got it, "censorship"!
This is a really good way to test a lot of "movements". If they are being applied to parallel ideologies, then the movement is likely legitimate. But if instead it's only being very narrowly applied to one issue, it's likely people are actually using buzz words and emotional manipulation to get you to argue something you wouldn't actually agree with otherwise.
Deprecating - Thing
Self Detracting - Different thing
So, censorship is a thing that the government or ruling body does.
Self censorship is non-existent idea that incels made up.
They are different, and in my opinion, only one is worth discussing.
It's also worth nothing that Nintendo is not "afraid" of releasing sexual content. The Splatoon Manga (which was translated and published in the west) has full frontal nudity. They license body pillows of Peach in .... well, let's just say NOT her dress. I don't know why they wanted to go with the NA release for the remaster, but it sure as heck wasn't fear.
Again, while I really, sincerely appreciate the effort you put into this, to me all of these answers seem to be variations on "respect the creator, except when you don't" and "go with the original, except when you don't". It's subjective.
Your opinions are valid and well thought out, but that's all they are ... opinions of what to do in a given situation. Society needs hard set rules that are simple and apply in all situations. Right now we already have one when it comes to content; the rights holder has exclusive and completely control over the content they release. The artist is the rights holder until they sell it to someone else, or produce it under contract.
It's simple, and while not perfect, it works pretty well in almost every situation.
The only thing I would point out that I categorically disagree with is your use of the world "censorship". Only the government can censor something. Censorship is when it's illegal to do something in any context. I am completely against censorship.
Nintendo deciding that their opinion on content they own has changed between 2015 and 2025 isn't censorship. It's an opinion, as valid as any of yours. They have every right to have it, and every right to act on it ... just like how if you owned this content, you would be able to act on your opinion.
I really hope we meet again on other topics. While I don't agree, you still gave me a lot to contemplate and think on, and I thank you for that.
Thank you so much for investing so much time and thought into a reply. That blows my mind and makes my day.
However, while this very effectively communicates why you believe things should be different, that’s not the question I’m asking. I’m asking HOW you make it different while respecting edge cases. How do you respect the creator in the case where, for example, they tell Nintendo that they feel a character’s name should be “Death to Israel”. And as soon as you say “Oh well obviously in that case Nintendo should be able to say no”, then you’re just endorsing subjective enforcement, which is a nice name for "tyranny, but where I'm in charge".
I mean, as a Marxist in a Marxist state, there is no creator. The work belongs to the people, and decisions on changes to the content would be made by the collective agreement of the union which sponsored and paid for it's creation. The "artist" would get one vote, same as everyone else involved. It would never been an issue if the original was changed, because that would require the majority of people to agree that was the right decision.
Marxism dose not resemble capitalism even slightly. It's difficult and not very meaningful to speak about parallels, although I'm always up for trying!
I don't disagree. I just don't think that's happening here. NOA didn't force Nintendo to change the game. If they did, sure, I would be against that.
But Nintendo changed it on their own. I'm not against Nintendo deciding that in 2025, the US release more accurate reflects their values then the one they published in 2015. They have every right to think that, and every right to act on it.
I can give you the long and shot of it pretty quick. A series of studies by universities in Japan showed that a overwhelming majority of male and some females felt sexual assault was justified if a girl dresses sexy or even if she accidently flashers her panties. The main reason they gave for thinking this was how it's normalized in anime.
It made headlines and became a huge issue, and led to a lot of publisher vowing to remove that trope. It's important to note that it's really limited to that exact troupe. Like you can show anime breasts on TV after 8pm, and even some of the anime that show nudity like that stopped showing panty shots. Boobies? Fine. Panties? Bad. Only in Japan, man.
There has been almost no blowback.
I can't speak for every company, but the ones I've interacted with are not in any way interested in globalization, to the point where any company that wants to appeal to the West generally moves it's leadership team to the US (ie, Sony) because the concept is so far removed from cooperate culture.
I don't completely disagree, but I would say that's the idea they are becoming "Westernized" is inaccurate. They aggressively do not care what is happening in the West. However, there is a independent push in Japan to remove panty shots and revealing clothing from non-sexual media. It's pretty universal, and started in anime years ago. It's also really complicated as to why it happened, as it requires a lot of sub-text.
They are making these changes because it's what vouge in Japan right now. They are not making them for the West. They still do very Japan things. There is straight up nudity in the Splatoon manga, because nudity isn't revealing clothing!
Nintendo is the Japanese publisher, which means they have finial say on what version gets release there. The fact that they went with this version means this is the one they wanted to release. There is absolutely zero change NOA "bullied" Nintendo into publishing this version even if they didn't want to.
This is why I speak to the edge case of "what if Nintendo has changed their mind". And I mean they clearly have in a lot of cases. They remove things from Japanese only re-releases that have never seen a release outside Japan.
So if you want the original publisher to retain control, there is no problem here. This is the version Nintendo and NOA both want. It's either that or "force" Nintendo to release a version they no longer want to, which you said you didn't want to happen, at least in the case where it was my work.
You need to add "you think" to that second paragraph, while acknowledging that basically every artist on earth disagrees with you. Again, you have every right to an opinion, even an unpopular one. But you should state it as an opinion.
As for the "on topic part", do you have answers for the questions I asked in post 115?
I think we can both agree that we dislike the idea of arbitrary changes to creative works. The only real disconnect I see is that I'm more of a realist. While I absolutely support burning down the system from time to time, I tend not to unless there is a better system we could put up in it's place.
Tear down capitalism and replace it with a Marxist utopia? Yes please. Tear down the system of control over published works and replace it with ... ???. No thanks.
Get back to me when you've got a really solid idea of how to move forward, and I'll most likely support it
That's mostly why I replied to you. Not to suggest that you are fundamentally wrong, but encourage you to think about the edge cases and inform your own opinion a bit more.
You just don't have any right to tell me it objectively isn't art because of your opinion, or suggest art should be treated differently then "not art" when what is art is subjective.
In the literally word, they are very clear rules that are agreed on as to what makes a work of writing "art", or "pros". I'm going to go with that.
I also don't really see how you could argue that a long form poem isn't art, regardless of it's topic. It was an artist decision to not simply write it in pros. Art doesn't just "entertain", it challenges and informs.
Andy Warhol is not entertaining. He's absolutely an artist.
My personal opinion? I hate the changes and think they are not just pointless, but are damaging to feminist ideology. Men in Japan shouldn't be making decisions about how woman in the UK and NA should see their own bodies.
But my belief that NOA has the right to fully moderate the work they publish supersedes that. I defend that right, even though I don't agree with the changes, because as a rights holder and a creative, I know how important that right is.
I respect the idea of giving control to the creator, but what's that look like?
If 10 people worked on the boob slider and were involved in its creative design, should NOA have to ask each of them individually if they approve of the change? What if 5 of them agree and 5 don’t?
What if 5 of them ask NOA to remove it in the Western release because they understand the West is more uptight about things like that and they don’t want to offend anyone?
If I hire someone to write something for my store flyer, clearly starting that I don’t want offensive language, but they use offensive language anyways, should I be forced to publish it as is and irreparable harm my business? Should I be forced to pay someone else for a completely new write up because it’s “censorship” to change their original to remove the thing I told them not to do in the first place?
The problem I always find with “free speech" arguments is that no one takes the time to answer questions like this, and they generally lack suggestions of “rules” that would replace the ones we have now. The consent seems to be that everything should be subjective, just … better somehow.
That means what people are actually saying is that on a case-by-case basis, we should check in with them and find out how they would handle it in that given situation, and then force people to do it that way.
That’s not free speech. That’s despotism.
The current system, that the rights holder has exclusive and unlimited rights to edit the works they own is imperfect, but it's absolutely the best opinion I've ever seen presented.
I would consider the work in question a work of artistic expression. It's a long form poem and I wrote it as a pollical statement.
But beyond that, who gets to tell me what is and what isn't art? I have written articles for news outlets that I would consider "art". Do other people get to tell me they aren't art, and then use that to justify subjecting them to different rules?
One of the first things I ever wrote that wasn't garbage was an article on, shocker, the unjustified negative perception of Marxism. It was published in the York and University of Toronto news papers.
It wrote it before I was sensitive to things like pronoun usage, so it almost exclusively used male pronouns even when the reference is gender neutral. Also when I discussed the LGBT+ community I used language that, while at the time was consider sensitive, is out of date.
10 years ago I was asked to re-submit it and do a talk on it. I changed it to correct both those problems. When I gave a talk on it at a Japanize university, I removed a part where I talked about World Word 2 because obviously.
Do you think this is "dangerous" self-censorship? Do you feel that other people should be allowed to force me to present my work in it's original form, even if I no longer agree with that work? Should some government body forbid me from changing the content when I present it in different countries, even if I feel it doesn't change the overall message?
And keep in mind the important part here is that I'm the RIGHTS HOLDER, not that I'm the creator. If I sold this piece to someone else to publish or created it on commission, I would give up creative control to a degree agreed on in the terms of distribution.
Generalizations are dangerous. If you grew up in a country where Play Boy isn't a thing, it's very likely you don't understand the problem and it looks like some random change. You don't associate the costume with anything sexual, so putting it on the character isn't sexualization. So you might think you are actually pushing back at a completely random, unjustified change.
Bunny suits, even on very young characters, are pretty common in Japanize media because it's not a sexual costume. It a leotarded and ears. I mean, even Dragon Quest has that. I do not think that all 150 million people in Japan "have a problem".
I just think NOA has the right to change things to reflect the different sensibilities in the countries they publish in. Sometimes I even disagree with the changes they make, but I still support their right to make them.
I just want to be perfectly clear that the problem people have is that a 13 year old girl can't be made to ware a bunny sex costume. Just let that sink in.
It's not even about "skin". In Japan, the "bunny suit" has no real sexual connection, given Play Boy wasn't really a thing (1), unlike the West were it's an overtly sexual symbol.
So they made the bunny suit in the west into more of a bunny costume, because the idea of having a 13 year old being sexualized didn't sit well with NOA.
There is one other minor change, but this is where the majority of discourse is happening.
I also have to point out, again, that DISCRETION is not CENCORSHIP. Censorship is when an outside body, generally a government, forces changes. NOA is the Western publisher and IP rights holder. They have every right to choose what goes into the game they are publishing, or refuse to publish any game with content that doesn't align with their values.
In fact the only possible censorship in situations like this is when the people upset they don't get play sexy dress up with a child try to force the IP holder to change things back to the way THEY want it, as they are trying to take away the publishers right to control and moderate their own content. That's censorship.
1 - Guess who the first, and to my knowledge only, company to hold the right to distribute Play Boy products and create new products using the Play Boy name in Japan?
I feel so bad that Monolith, after years of resisting, have been forced to make this. I also hate the fact that it means we're likely going to have to wait longer for a new game, or might mean that game has less polish.
But with that out of the way ...
OMFG BEST NEWS EVER. I can't wait. Not only do I get to play it again, but my wife missed it the first time and she's going to LOVE it.
<Happy Dance>
Oh man, and we're totally going to have people freaking out and fighting over how they can't dress the 13 year old up in a sex bunny suit aren't we? Can't wait for that either!
Publishing rights and IP rights are not the same thing. Rare didn't, and therefor Microsoft doesn't, have the publishing rights to over half the games in that collection. They also don't have publishing rights for a lot of the extra content, as it was created and licensee exclusively for the Xbox release.
There is segment in the collection where they talk about how it took years to track down all the rights holders (over 100 different entities) and get a license to re-release. If Microsoft wanted to release it on Switch, they would need to do all that work over again. Not impossible, but not likely.
The collection was a special thing for the 30th anniversary, it wasn't really a "product". Microsoft stated at the time that it's sales drastically exceeded expectations to the point where they had stock issues. They also said it wasn't profitable. So that's the mindset it was released under. They planned on losing a TON of money to make it. It sold like hotcakes, so they only lost A LOT of money. Yay!
The good news is all the games that MS does have the publishing rights to are likely to see re-releases individually. So unless you REALLY want the ZX-spectrum games, you'll at least have the opportunity to play them. For like 20 times the price. But hey, life's imperfect.
Microsoft has incredible scaling tools, having invested literally 100s of billions into how the windows platform scales to low end systems. At one point, the WUP let you write software for high end PCs and it would scale to run on a Window's phone automatically. You didn't even have to "port" it.
For the most part, it shouldn't be difficult to get anything that runs on the Series S (4TF) at around half the resolution on Switch (1.5TF ... kinda, it's complicated). With theoretically perfect scaling, half resolution takes 1/4th the processing power.
Oh wait ... every game needs to run on the S. So, again theoretically, Microsoft can likely make a passable port of any of their 1st party games for the current Switch.
As for COD ... no rumors or theory required! Starting with the first installment released after Nintendo's NEXT console, they need to bring the current COD title to Switch, fully featured, within 90 days of launch. That's in writing.
You're not wrong, but it's hard to buy an Indie studio. They're not public, so if the person running it doesn't want to sell, you have no recourse. It's simply not for sale. It's also really hard to keep the "indie" feel once one of the largest companies in the world owns you. Instead they focus on funding small projects from their 1st parties (Pentiment, Hi-Fi Rush) and ID@Xbox.
I mean, they have their flaws, but there is no company that has been more friendly and valuable to indie game development in the last decade then MS. Publish your game though ID@Xbox and you get free tech support, access to tools to port it to Switch and PC, multiplayer cross platform support, and MS handles CC processing and refunds at no extra cost. All for as little as 8% of your gross. They are not pushing for you to make your game exclusive, but a lot of them end up on Game Pass. I would say there is a new high tier indie game on the service every week or so. They also used to get all Humble Games releases, not sure if that's still a thing (the deal OR the publisher)
It's like Steam, if Steam wasn't evil. Or was ... I guess, slightly less evil.
Publishing a game on the Switch eshop is a nightmare, but manageable. They want 15%, which honestly isn't that bad.
Before Sony will let your game on their platform you need to prove it doesn't support cross platform multiplayer, buy and then publicly destroy a Xbox and Switch, and let them flog you while you chat "I need you more then you need me, my Masters". You get zero support, and if it's not your first ever game, they might take 30%.
I mean the effects are cumulative. In fact, 10 small but well received games that are all exclusive are more likely to drive sale then a single exclusive smash hit. Heck, for Sony to turn around their disastrous start to the PS3 generation, it took 12 exclusives in one year.
So far for me it looks like Team Wizard cast a spell that made the other teams disappear ...
But I guess when the choices are dude in armor, dude in PJs, or dude with powers over the elemental forces of the universe ... it's going to be pretty one sided.
The red line for MS is always going to be system utilization. Contrary to popular belief, the PS5 and Xbox S/X are fundamentally different from each other in meaningful ways. Even more contrary, the Xbox X when utilized fully is a more capable machine. But if you're making a cross platform game, you generally just code it in an environment independent API and call it a day. Going back and changing the way it uses VRAM on Xbox to get a 2% increase in power is a non-starter.
But if you're making a console exclusive, you don't do that. You use a extremely environment dependent API that utilizes what each system does differently to the fullest. This doesn't effect PC ports because PC is scalable, but if you take a game like Halo, which milks every FLOP the Xbox has on offer and port it to PS5 ... it's going to run like garbage unless you scale back the output(1). You would need to remove all the "Xbox go fast stuff" and replace it with all the "PS5 go fast stuff" to make them comparable, and that's time consuming and expensive. It's so time consuming that both the Sea of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush ports on PS5 are ports of the Series S game, scaled up to PS5 hardware ... not a direct port of the much more demanding Series X games that utilize "Xbox go fast stuff".
Because of this, I think Nintendo will get more games then PlayStation, seeing the Switch is comparable to the Series S and ports are really easy.
Remember, no decision made by any company on earth is made for any reason other then money. They will port every game that's profitable to port. That is absolutely not all games. In fact, when speaking to 1st party, it's likely not even that many.
1 - Well, I mean ... it wouldn't actually run. It would address RAM, VRAM, and storage incorrectly. But like, if you just converted all that to standard addressing, it would run poorly.
While this is great review that captures a given take on the game, for people who are still unsure as to if they should try it out, let me offer a slightly different take.
This is one of the best video games ever made, in one of the best series in existence.
While the switch is obviously not the best place to play it, if it's your only opinion, you should take it. Yes, the gameplay is a little wonky and the difficulty spikes if you don't just spam items to win every encounter ... but honestly, that's not the point! This game is an opportunity to run around in one of the wildest, weirdest, and most enjoyable game worlds every created.
It's like if every Western stereotype about Japan was true, but one man missed the joke and is taking everything at face value and SUPER serious.
An NDA requires informed, signed consent. As someone who has playtested a lot of games and software, it's not something taken lightly. It's also common for builds of a beta project to include identifiers built into the output so it's impossible to post something online without outing yourself as the leaker.
Nintendo isn't doing any of this, so they have made no serious effort to keep it secrets. They made a non-binding request.
So why say anything? Hey remember that article yesterday where Nintendolife talked about the leak without posting any details instead of writing a full article on the details of the playtest? Yeah that's why.
It's actually the best of both worlds. Any game site that doesn't want to piss off Nintendo isn't going to write a article about the leaks, and there is also no point in them writing article speculating about what it is because ... we already know.
So the people who proactively want to get details about this test before it's final can go do that. They would have done that anyways. But people who are not looking for that information are far less likely to be exposed to it, and far less likely to form an opinion based on an incomplete product.
I think people's hearts are in the right place. We only ever hear about large corporations suing people, and no one is writing any articles about how Kelly from Montana patented some novel idea and lived off the residuals.
When bad news is all we get, it's easy to assume all news is bad.
Let's say I'm Nintendo. I patent a bunch of ways to transfer and store data about creatures in my creature collecting game.
Then Palworld comes out.
If I think that it's too similar to my creature collecting game, I would need to turn to TRADEMARK law, not patents. And trademark law would tell me I'm out of luck, because you're allowed to copy gameplay elements all you want.
But I could still sue them for Trademark violation, knowing I would lose. I could then ask for a settlement that is lower then the cost of litigation. Give me $500,000, or I'll make you spend $1,000,000 in court. This is common. This happens all the time. It would be a gamble in this case because if the defendant had enough money, they could use anti SLAPP laws to sue to recover legal costs.
To sue for patent violation, I first need to file for discovery and look at the games code. This costs me a LOT of money, because I need both legal and technical experts. Once I find data formats or data transfer protocol that look like the ones I have a patent for, I file a notice of intent, giving the defendant an opportunity to "show their work' on how they independently developed the systems. Only after they fail to do so can I sue.
You can't just target someone with a patent suit. There is a lot of leg work involved. It is much easier to just target someone with an IP violation. Another important point is that the judgement in patent lawsuits are MUCH lower. This suit is for $6 million. Most corporates lawyers wouldn't get out of bed for that much! That's because all you can sue for is the market value of the patent. With IP law, you can sue for whatever value you assign to your IP, and tack on punitive damages up to a percentage of the total net worth of the defendant.
No judgment, I'm just trying my best to make the discourse here as pleasant as possible for as many people as possible.
"There's something I want to be clear on - are you claiming that Nintendo has a right over the concept itself based on a bit of coding, or are you saying they have a right over a very specific "coding syntax" for lack of a better word?"
I would suggest that you're going to get a lot better traction if you instead word that as "Can you explain exactly how having patent for game code works". Including a phrase like "are you claiming" is by nature confrontational, and is a tactic used in aggressive discourse to force a person to defend themselves instead of focus on the argument they made. A lot of people might be put off by it and answer your question with similar aggression.
I feel ya, but at the same time, that's just how the law works. You have no particular problem with patents, you're just concerned with how capitalism corrupts a legal system. Couldn't agree more on that part.
In order to sue for patent violation, you have to have a patent, and you have make a preliminary case for violation by proving that the infringing product at least COULD violate your patent.
To sue for copyright or trademark infringement you can point at someone and scream "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY".
So if I have a ton of money and just want to sue someone for stealing my "idea", I have to use IP law unless I already obtained a patent, and the patent needs to be valid.
Trademarks, by definition, are only obtainable by large companies seeing they are dependent on recognition. Patents are obtainable by anyone.
So one system is extremely subjective and only benefits the megarich. The other is much more structured and benefits everyone, at least in theory. It's hard to make an argument that the second one is worse.
Also there are, on average, 15 software patent suits filed every single day. I do not find the fact that two of them over the course of a month both relate to gaming companies odd at all. If you looked into all patents filed in the months before the Palworld suit, I'm sure you'll find dozens that targets video games. The only difference is reporting on them back then wouldn't generate engagement. That's the only thing Nintendo going after Palworld changed.
How to make a game where you catch things in balls without violating the patent - Use a different format for your data.
Alternate solution - Use the same data format and pay Nintendo a couple of cents for every unit you sell.
Only way to get sued - Use the exact same data format but try and hide it from Nintendo so you don't have to pay.
If you have any other questions, I'm more then happy to answer them, but if I'm being honest I could really do without the jumping to the worst possible concussion part.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. Patents have very little to do with gaming in general, and the patents in question are all related to technical processes which SEGA invested billions to develop and license to other companies. They have nothing to do with "gameplay". Gameplay isn't something you can patent.
Patents are an important vertical (revenue stream) for gaming developers (or any software company), because it means if you invest time and effort into solving a problem, like for example, how to handle multithreading on phone chips that don't support it by default, you can sell that innovation even if the value it adds to the one project you are working on is minimal.
More importantly, it's means that if someone like me, who has no connection to a large company and just codes in my spare time, comes up with something useful ... I can protect it. Without patents no one could ever do that. You couldn't even try and sell your innovation because as soon as you explained what your innovation did to a large company, they would just steal it.
I have two software patents. Dose that makes me an evil person who is destroying gaming?
Patents are always available to use at market value. You can't "deny" a patent. They do not gatekeep anything. Lawsuits come from people using them without disclosing that, not from the patent owner not being willing to license them. Based on the number of DLs, the licensing few SEGA set for these patents is around 0.003 USD pre use.
To be clear, the patents are NOT for "gameplay mechanics". They are for coding and technical processes that support the mechanics.
Gameplay is not covered by patent law, it's covered by trademark. And trademark law clearly says that no gameplay element or mechanic is eligible for protection.
Comments 2,060
Re: Pokémon Sleep Development To Shift To Internal Subsidiary
This is generally a good sign for the game. While not always, moving and consolidating publishing and development of a successful game is an indication you're going to invest heavily moving forward and want a bigger share of the profit then you were getting under the previous agreement.
Late stage cataplasm at it's finest! Select Button assumed all the risk and did all the work, and now that they overperformed and the game seems like a sure thing, the bigger fish is taking over and locking them out of future profits!
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@BTB20 @Glasso
Not to wade into your argument, but to inject some perspective:
The 5 Switch title have sold 100 million units on Switch. Sword / Shield and Scarlet / violet sold 26 and 24 million. It's important to look at that holistically, as it shows that saturation isn't really that much of an issue when it comes to Pokémon. You can release a game every 16 months without much canalization.
Nintendo themselves have shown they think that 16 months is enough time between Pokémon games as to not impact sales. Palworld game out 10 months ago.
We can't know how many more people would have played Pokémon Switch games if Nintendo gave the games away for free to 30 million people, but I'm confident is saying "more". You can't ignore the fact that people had the option to try Palworld at no cost. It's like counting people who downloaded your free demo as "sales". What's important to ask is "are they going to play long enough that it might mean they don't buy a new Pokémon game when it comes out".
Palworld's concurrent users on Steam hovers around 25,000 now. While it's impossible to know what Pokémon's numbers look like, the important part is that 25,000 players after 10 months is not that impressive. That, combined with the fact that Nintendo already knows that people are more then willing to buy a new Pokémon game every 16 months, is hardly "scary". I think it's very difficult to argue that Nintendo feels the need for action, based on these facts.
I love Palworld. Was literally playing it before posting this. So I can say with confidence that it's nothing like Pokémon. It has almost zero resemblance to Pokémon, other then the creature catching mechanics. It's a 3rd person real time survival game with base building, very much in the style of ARC. Pokémon is a turn based RPG creature collector. Despite everyone on the internet comparing them, from a gameplay and marketing perspective, there is likely little to no overlap in player base.
If you were to compare it to a Pokémon game it only really shares core concepts with Arcus, which sold poorly. So we actually know for a fact that a large number of Pokémon fans are not interested in that playstyle.
So while you're both welcome to your opinions and I will offer nothing to counter either of them, you're entire argument is happening under the premise that Nintendo see's Palworld as a "Pokémon clone", something is absolutely is not, and that they feel there is overlap in player base, something that would be extremely difficult to argue is the case.
Nintendo is suing for patent infringement because they believe Palword violated technical patents that cover specific computer processes and algorithms around creature collection, not because they think it's "like Pokémon". Suing them for being too much like Pokémon is possible, but it would be a civil copyright case, not a patent case. If they were looking to "bully" someone, they could easily ask for BILLIONS in damages and punitives in civil court. Instead they are seeking $66,000 in damagers in patent court.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@GameOtaku
You are reading them wrong, or given they are all 100s of pages each, only reading the title.
The patents cover extremely specific CODE and computer processing methods, NOT game mechanics.
Here is an example:
"Next, processor 81 determines whether or not to end the game processing (step S136). Conditions for ending the game processing in step S136 above include, for example, a condition for ending the game processing being satisfied, or the user performing an operation to end the game processing. If processor 81 does not end the game processing, it returns to step S122 above and repeats the process, and if it ends the game processing, it ends the process according to the flowchart. Thereafter, the series of processes from step S122 to step S136 are repeatedly executed until it is determined in step S136 that the process is to end."
The patents are 100s of pages of that type of incredible technical data, not "oh we own tossing balls now". There are also 84 diagrams, flow chats, and logic maps that are not part of what's searchable on Google that you would need to get from the patent office in Japan to have any hope of understanding what's actually been patented.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@arkanjo29
I explained how the patent in question is 40 years old, how game mechanics can't be patented, and how the patents in question cover game code.
Please read my posts before replying to them.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@Ninetaled
The patents are for game code. The entire suit is an accusation of stolen code. There is literally no other issue at play.
Do you have a source for Nintendo's policy to not litigate unless the target has made a given amount of money, or for Adult Swim being located in China?
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@Folkloner
And thank you for the shout out. Means a lot to me.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@Ninetaled
1) Please read post 31. Precedent doesn't apply to this case.
2) You can't patent a game mechanic, and you can't file for patent violation unless you own a patent and can show it was likely violated.
3) Play Cassette beasts, EvoCreo, Nexomon: Extinction or for that matter, Pocket Mortys. You'll quickly notice they are literally just Pokémon. Why isn't Nintendo suing them?
How about Pocket Incoming? That game has Pikachu in it, as well as Ash and Misty. It has direct clones of 100s of Pokémon, and plays exactly like Pokémon.
Because they didn't copy game code, the thing this case is about. It has nothing to do with the un-patentable ball throwing , which is in 100s of games. In Pocket Inc's case, the design patent on those characters expired 25 years ago and anyone can use them (as long as you change any of the names that are Trademarks, seeing that doesn't expire).
Like I'm saying in other post, you should really spend more time informing your opinion then arguing your incorrect assumptions.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@arkanjo29 @Haruki_NLI
It is not a copyright case, it's a patent case.
The Patents Nintendo is suggesting Palworld violates have been jointly owned by Nintendo and TPC for up to 40 years. They are part of very large technical patents (the smallest is 255 pages long).
As is common in Japanese patent cases, Nintendo refiled for a new patent which, while is no way different from the one they already had, is narrowly defined and only includes the exact part the case is about.
This is a complicated issue. We really should be asking questions more and making statements less.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
@SmaggTheSmug
There is no way to set precedent, because in the court system this case is before precedent isn't really a thing.
Not every legal system in the world follows the same jurisprudence as US criminal law. In Japanese patent law, you follow the letter of the Patent Act as written. You can not introduce arguments that previous rulings should effect your case or the interpretation of the law. The patent system is completely removed from other civil law.
You also couldn't introduce a Japanese courts ruling for consideration in a US court.
I would very much encourage you to pause at the point to ask yourself if, based on the fact that you are arguing precedent when that doesn't even apply, if your opinion is informed enough that you should be making arguments, Do you understand the complex difference between the court system you are familiar with, and the largely isolated and vastly different courts of Japan?
Or should you instead be seeking additional information to inform your opinion and correct any other knowledge gaps you might have.
Re: Nintendo's Lawsuit Against Palworld Is "A Clear Case Of Bullying", Says Analyst
Can we just ... stop? Please?
$66,000 is what they are asking.
Palworld made, at a conservative estimate (given it's real hard to know how much they made from Game Pass), $164,000,000.00
So:
1) Can we just stop painting the company that made $164,000,000.00 off a single product as the little guys who need our support and protection?
2) Can we stop suggesting that asking for 0.0004% of the money they made off the game is some sort of bulling, or message, or statement, or anything other then a company legitimately protecting their patent?
They could have just sued them for elventy billion dollars in civil court, where you get to just make up a number and that sue for 10 times that in punitive, if they wanted to "bully" someone.
Instead they are asking for $66,000, that will be SPLIT TWO WAYS. So Nintendo is looking to get $33,000.
That is the revenue they currently make in ONE MINUTE AND 20 SECONDS.
<sigh>
And I guess just for the record, the injection isn't a big deal either. It should get lifted when you agree to pay the license fee for the patent you violated moving forward, which (based on what the lawsuit is asking for), is 1 US cent for every 3500 copies of the game sold.
Re: Palworld Developer Details Patent Infringement Claims From Nintendo's Lawsuit
@anoyonmus
As long as your opinions are consistent and informed, power to ya.
The problem is never with what people land on, it's with how people end up landing there.
Re: Palworld Developer Details Patent Infringement Claims From Nintendo's Lawsuit
@anoyonmus
Not to go on a rant here ... wait, no, I'm totally going to go on a rant.
The West, and the US specifically, have a unique relationship with capitalism. They have literally killed millions to defend it as an ideal, and hate nothing more then socialism as it's perceived "opposite". Except ... literally every time they witness capitalism working the way it SHOULD, they treat it like the most vial thing they have ever seen.
If you really love capitalism then as the richer company, Nintendo is ethically and morally superior, and they are obligated to crush the "worse" company for the good of everyone. It ensures that capital stays in the most capable hands, which should both lead to more job creation and "trickle down" quality of life to all! You fought wars for this! You just elected the guys who believe in this hook, line and sinker.
On the flip side, any time they see socialism, they eat it up! I saw Fox news, the most right wing private media outlet on the planet, run a "feel good" story about a restaurant owner who forbid tipping, but instead shares the night's profits with his employees. Everyone commented how great it was and how more people should do that.
Hate to tell you but ... that's Marxism. That's just flat out Marxism. You are praising Marxism.
<sigh>
Unite, chains, all that.
Re: Palworld Developer Details Patent Infringement Claims From Nintendo's Lawsuit
@anoyonmus
I appreciate the shout out. Thank you.
Re: Palworld Developer Details Patent Infringement Claims From Nintendo's Lawsuit
@domatron66 @NiallMitch14 I
Just to reenforce this, my friend has a patent for "A way of combining ingredients and subjecting them to heat to create an eatable product"
He doesn't get checks every time someone cooks something. The patent is for a very specific factory lay out and one of the mechanisms used in it.
Patent titles are designed to be searchable. They are extremely general. You have to read the actual patent to know what exactly it covers.
Re: Palworld Developer Details Patent Infringement Claims From Nintendo's Lawsuit
You can do all the "gameplay elements" in literally 1000s of games. You catch creatures in games like Cassette Beasts, which is just Pokemon in every possible aspect, and there are games where riding on beasts is core to gameplay, like Ark. So what's up?
Well, for what seems like the billionth time ... you can't patent gameplay. What Nintendo is really saying is that the underlying systems (code) used to make these thing possible, and store data about how the creatures act or how their stats are stored, as in the flags for if they are ridable or not, were directly stolen by Polyword. It's also likely they are suggesting the "math" behind the catching of Pokémon based on health is too close to the math they are using. Can't patent that idea, but you sure as heck can patent an equation.
Before reacting to something like this, ask yourself some questions. Are there other games where you toss items to catch thing? Sure, tons. Are there games were you can catch things and ride them? Also a yes. So why is Nintendo not suing them?
That should help you to understand that you, and this small article on a game site with no staff who are legal experts, are missing some key information as to particulars of the case.
And that's fine. This is the exact right amount of information for a update on a game site. The onus is on you to seek out professional consensus before forming a strong opinion and arguing that opinion as if it was fact.
it's also important to note, for the PATENTS ARE EVIL crowd, that based on the total sales and the fact they are are suggesting 3 patents were violated, they are seeking about a penny for every 3,500(ish) games sold, per patent.
That is a completely reasonable licensing fee, not a doomsday device used to hinder innovation.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@themightyant
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it's hard to translate the friendly, hopefully "teaching" vibe I'm trying to go for in typing. So please try and read what I'm saying in that light.
Ghost is literally a word in the dictionary. Ghosts are not real. We use words to identify objects and concepts. Words do not provide these objects and concepts any extra validity. Also Incel is in the dictionary, and I'm pretty sure that word originated with Incels.
You can trace the Etymology of self-censorship, and it leads to far right groups and incels. A good way to steel yourself against propaganda like this is to ask about something called "parallel ideology."
The people who talk about self-censorship, do they ever mention how likely the biggest example is how members of the LGBT+ community often have to write about straight characters because if they make them gay they face death treats and boycotts?
No, they just exclusively seem to be talking about how moving away from media dominated by the male gaze is actually a mortally bad thing because it's ... ummm ... what's a word people react strongly too? Oh, I got it, "censorship"!
This is a really good way to test a lot of "movements". If they are being applied to parallel ideologies, then the movement is likely legitimate. But if instead it's only being very narrowly applied to one issue, it's likely people are actually using buzz words and emotional manipulation to get you to argue something you wouldn't actually agree with otherwise.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@themightyant
I get what you are coming from, but watch this.
Respect - Thing
Self Respect- Different thing
Deprecating - Thing
Self Detracting - Different thing
So, censorship is a thing that the government or ruling body does.
Self censorship is non-existent idea that incels made up.
They are different, and in my opinion, only one is worth discussing.
It's also worth nothing that Nintendo is not "afraid" of releasing sexual content. The Splatoon Manga (which was translated and published in the west) has full frontal nudity. They license body pillows of Peach in .... well, let's just say NOT her dress. I don't know why they wanted to go with the NA release for the remaster, but it sure as heck wasn't fear.
Re: Random: Some Pokémon TCG Pocket Players Are Convinced Boosters With "Bent Corners" Contain Better Pulls
If you press the "A" button right as the Poke-ball bounces, it increase the catch rate.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@Kingy
Again, while I really, sincerely appreciate the effort you put into this, to me all of these answers seem to be variations on "respect the creator, except when you don't" and "go with the original, except when you don't". It's subjective.
Your opinions are valid and well thought out, but that's all they are ... opinions of what to do in a given situation. Society needs hard set rules that are simple and apply in all situations. Right now we already have one when it comes to content; the rights holder has exclusive and completely control over the content they release. The artist is the rights holder until they sell it to someone else, or produce it under contract.
It's simple, and while not perfect, it works pretty well in almost every situation.
The only thing I would point out that I categorically disagree with is your use of the world "censorship". Only the government can censor something. Censorship is when it's illegal to do something in any context. I am completely against censorship.
Nintendo deciding that their opinion on content they own has changed between 2015 and 2025 isn't censorship. It's an opinion, as valid as any of yours. They have every right to have it, and every right to act on it ... just like how if you owned this content, you would be able to act on your opinion.
I really hope we meet again on other topics. While I don't agree, you still gave me a lot to contemplate and think on, and I thank you for that.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@Kingy
Thank you so much for investing so much time and thought into a reply. That blows my mind and makes my day.
However, while this very effectively communicates why you believe things should be different, that’s not the question I’m asking. I’m asking HOW you make it different while respecting edge cases. How do you respect the creator in the case where, for example, they tell Nintendo that they feel a character’s name should be “Death to Israel”. And as soon as you say “Oh well obviously in that case Nintendo should be able to say no”, then you’re just endorsing subjective enforcement, which is a nice name for "tyranny, but where I'm in charge".
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@JohnnyMind
I mean, as a Marxist in a Marxist state, there is no creator. The work belongs to the people, and decisions on changes to the content would be made by the collective agreement of the union which sponsored and paid for it's creation. The "artist" would get one vote, same as everyone else involved. It would never been an issue if the original was changed, because that would require the majority of people to agree that was the right decision.
Marxism dose not resemble capitalism even slightly. It's difficult and not very meaningful to speak about parallels, although I'm always up for trying!
I don't disagree. I just don't think that's happening here. NOA didn't force Nintendo to change the game. If they did, sure, I would be against that.
But Nintendo changed it on their own. I'm not against Nintendo deciding that in 2025, the US release more accurate reflects their values then the one they published in 2015. They have every right to think that, and every right to act on it.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@jamess
I can give you the long and shot of it pretty quick. A series of studies by universities in Japan showed that a overwhelming majority of male and some females felt sexual assault was justified if a girl dresses sexy or even if she accidently flashers her panties. The main reason they gave for thinking this was how it's normalized in anime.
It made headlines and became a huge issue, and led to a lot of publisher vowing to remove that trope. It's important to note that it's really limited to that exact troupe. Like you can show anime breasts on TV after 8pm, and even some of the anime that show nudity like that stopped showing panty shots. Boobies? Fine. Panties? Bad. Only in Japan, man.
There has been almost no blowback.
I can't speak for every company, but the ones I've interacted with are not in any way interested in globalization, to the point where any company that wants to appeal to the West generally moves it's leadership team to the US (ie, Sony) because the concept is so far removed from cooperate culture.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@jamess
I don't completely disagree, but I would say that's the idea they are becoming "Westernized" is inaccurate. They aggressively do not care what is happening in the West. However, there is a independent push in Japan to remove panty shots and revealing clothing from non-sexual media. It's pretty universal, and started in anime years ago. It's also really complicated as to why it happened, as it requires a lot of sub-text.
They are making these changes because it's what vouge in Japan right now. They are not making them for the West. They still do very Japan things. There is straight up nudity in the Splatoon manga, because nudity isn't revealing clothing!
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@JohnnyMind
Nintendo is the Japanese publisher, which means they have finial say on what version gets release there. The fact that they went with this version means this is the one they wanted to release. There is absolutely zero change NOA "bullied" Nintendo into publishing this version even if they didn't want to.
This is why I speak to the edge case of "what if Nintendo has changed their mind". And I mean they clearly have in a lot of cases. They remove things from Japanese only re-releases that have never seen a release outside Japan.
So if you want the original publisher to retain control, there is no problem here. This is the version Nintendo and NOA both want. It's either that or "force" Nintendo to release a version they no longer want to, which you said you didn't want to happen, at least in the case where it was my work.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@Samalik
You need to add "you think" to that second paragraph, while acknowledging that basically every artist on earth disagrees with you. Again, you have every right to an opinion, even an unpopular one. But you should state it as an opinion.
As for the "on topic part", do you have answers for the questions I asked in post 115?
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@JohnnyMind
I think we can both agree that we dislike the idea of arbitrary changes to creative works. The only real disconnect I see is that I'm more of a realist. While I absolutely support burning down the system from time to time, I tend not to unless there is a better system we could put up in it's place.
Tear down capitalism and replace it with a Marxist utopia? Yes please. Tear down the system of control over published works and replace it with ... ???. No thanks.
Get back to me when you've got a really solid idea of how to move forward, and I'll most likely support it
That's mostly why I replied to you. Not to suggest that you are fundamentally wrong, but encourage you to think about the edge cases and inform your own opinion a bit more.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@Samalik
You have every right to think it's not art.
You just don't have any right to tell me it objectively isn't art because of your opinion, or suggest art should be treated differently then "not art" when what is art is subjective.
In the literally word, they are very clear rules that are agreed on as to what makes a work of writing "art", or "pros". I'm going to go with that.
I also don't really see how you could argue that a long form poem isn't art, regardless of it's topic. It was an artist decision to not simply write it in pros. Art doesn't just "entertain", it challenges and informs.
Andy Warhol is not entertaining. He's absolutely an artist.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@JohnnyMind
My personal opinion? I hate the changes and think they are not just pointless, but are damaging to feminist ideology. Men in Japan shouldn't be making decisions about how woman in the UK and NA should see their own bodies.
But my belief that NOA has the right to fully moderate the work they publish supersedes that. I defend that right, even though I don't agree with the changes, because as a rights holder and a creative, I know how important that right is.
I respect the idea of giving control to the creator, but what's that look like?
If 10 people worked on the boob slider and were involved in its creative design, should NOA have to ask each of them individually if they approve of the change? What if 5 of them agree and 5 don’t?
What if 5 of them ask NOA to remove it in the Western release because they understand the West is more uptight about things like that and they don’t want to offend anyone?
If I hire someone to write something for my store flyer, clearly starting that I don’t want offensive language, but they use offensive language anyways, should I be forced to publish it as is and irreparable harm my business? Should I be forced to pay someone else for a completely new write up because it’s “censorship” to change their original to remove the thing I told them not to do in the first place?
The problem I always find with “free speech" arguments is that no one takes the time to answer questions like this, and they generally lack suggestions of “rules” that would replace the ones we have now. The consent seems to be that everything should be subjective, just … better somehow.
That means what people are actually saying is that on a case-by-case basis, we should check in with them and find out how they would handle it in that given situation, and then force people to do it that way.
That’s not free speech. That’s despotism.
The current system, that the rights holder has exclusive and unlimited rights to edit the works they own is imperfect, but it's absolutely the best opinion I've ever seen presented.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@Samalik
I would consider the work in question a work of artistic expression. It's a long form poem and I wrote it as a pollical statement.
But beyond that, who gets to tell me what is and what isn't art? I have written articles for news outlets that I would consider "art". Do other people get to tell me they aren't art, and then use that to justify subjecting them to different rules?
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's 'Censorship'
@JohnnyMind
Honest question:
One of the first things I ever wrote that wasn't garbage was an article on, shocker, the unjustified negative perception of Marxism. It was published in the York and University of Toronto news papers.
It wrote it before I was sensitive to things like pronoun usage, so it almost exclusively used male pronouns even when the reference is gender neutral. Also when I discussed the LGBT+ community I used language that, while at the time was consider sensitive, is out of date.
10 years ago I was asked to re-submit it and do a talk on it. I changed it to correct both those problems. When I gave a talk on it at a Japanize university, I removed a part where I talked about World Word 2 because obviously.
Do you think this is "dangerous" self-censorship? Do you feel that other people should be allowed to force me to present my work in it's original form, even if I no longer agree with that work? Should some government body forbid me from changing the content when I present it in different countries, even if I feel it doesn't change the overall message?
And keep in mind the important part here is that I'm the RIGHTS HOLDER, not that I'm the creator. If I sold this piece to someone else to publish or created it on commission, I would give up creative control to a degree agreed on in the terms of distribution.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's Censorship
@Coxula
Generalizations are dangerous. If you grew up in a country where Play Boy isn't a thing, it's very likely you don't understand the problem and it looks like some random change. You don't associate the costume with anything sexual, so putting it on the character isn't sexualization. So you might think you are actually pushing back at a completely random, unjustified change.
Bunny suits, even on very young characters, are pretty common in Japanize media because it's not a sexual costume. It a leotarded and ears. I mean, even Dragon Quest has that. I do not think that all 150 million people in Japan "have a problem".
I just think NOA has the right to change things to reflect the different sensibilities in the countries they publish in. Sometimes I even disagree with the changes they make, but I still support their right to make them.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X Fans Are Once Again Discussing The Game's Censorship
Haha, called it.
I just want to be perfectly clear that the problem people have is that a 13 year old girl can't be made to ware a bunny sex costume. Just let that sink in.
It's not even about "skin". In Japan, the "bunny suit" has no real sexual connection, given Play Boy wasn't really a thing (1), unlike the West were it's an overtly sexual symbol.
So they made the bunny suit in the west into more of a bunny costume, because the idea of having a 13 year old being sexualized didn't sit well with NOA.
There is one other minor change, but this is where the majority of discourse is happening.
I also have to point out, again, that DISCRETION is not CENCORSHIP. Censorship is when an outside body, generally a government, forces changes. NOA is the Western publisher and IP rights holder. They have every right to choose what goes into the game they are publishing, or refuse to publish any game with content that doesn't align with their values.
In fact the only possible censorship in situations like this is when the people upset they don't get play sexy dress up with a child try to force the IP holder to change things back to the way THEY want it, as they are trying to take away the publishers right to control and moderate their own content. That's censorship.
1 - Guess who the first, and to my knowledge only, company to hold the right to distribute Play Boy products and create new products using the Play Boy name in Japan?
Nintendo. No, seriously.
Re: Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition Confirmed For Switch
I feel so bad that Monolith, after years of resisting, have been forced to make this. I also hate the fact that it means we're likely going to have to wait longer for a new game, or might mean that game has less polish.
But with that out of the way ...
OMFG BEST NEWS EVER. I can't wait. Not only do I get to play it again, but my wife missed it the first time and she's going to LOVE it.
<Happy Dance>
Oh man, and we're totally going to have people freaking out and fighting over how they can't dress the 13 year old up in a sex bunny suit aren't we? Can't wait for that either!
Re: 'Team Ninja' Sneaks The Win In Splatoon 3's 'Splatoween' Splatfest
I'm so glad we're still getting the seasonal events, and can't wait until Octivus.
Or Squidmas! Whatever you happen to celebrate.
I hope everyone had a great time, and like I always say, we're all winners today..
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
@TimGibson @r23q51yn
MS announced there next console back in March. Several developers already have it (or a prototype at least).
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
@VivianOblivion @JRiegler @Reg
Publishing rights and IP rights are not the same thing. Rare didn't, and therefor Microsoft doesn't, have the publishing rights to over half the games in that collection. They also don't have publishing rights for a lot of the extra content, as it was created and licensee exclusively for the Xbox release.
There is segment in the collection where they talk about how it took years to track down all the rights holders (over 100 different entities) and get a license to re-release. If Microsoft wanted to release it on Switch, they would need to do all that work over again. Not impossible, but not likely.
The collection was a special thing for the 30th anniversary, it wasn't really a "product". Microsoft stated at the time that it's sales drastically exceeded expectations to the point where they had stock issues. They also said it wasn't profitable. So that's the mindset it was released under. They planned on losing a TON of money to make it. It sold like hotcakes, so they only lost A LOT of money. Yay!
The good news is all the games that MS does have the publishing rights to are likely to see re-releases individually. So unless you REALLY want the ZX-spectrum games, you'll at least have the opportunity to play them. For like 20 times the price. But hey, life's imperfect.
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
@anoyonmus @Elbow
Microsoft has incredible scaling tools, having invested literally 100s of billions into how the windows platform scales to low end systems. At one point, the WUP let you write software for high end PCs and it would scale to run on a Window's phone automatically. You didn't even have to "port" it.
For the most part, it shouldn't be difficult to get anything that runs on the Series S (4TF) at around half the resolution on Switch (1.5TF ... kinda, it's complicated). With theoretically perfect scaling, half resolution takes 1/4th the processing power.
Oh wait ... every game needs to run on the S. So, again theoretically, Microsoft can likely make a passable port of any of their 1st party games for the current Switch.
As for COD ... no rumors or theory required! Starting with the first installment released after Nintendo's NEXT console, they need to bring the current COD title to Switch, fully featured, within 90 days of launch. That's in writing.
The bad news? Cloud counts.
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
@shoeses
You're not wrong, but it's hard to buy an Indie studio. They're not public, so if the person running it doesn't want to sell, you have no recourse. It's simply not for sale. It's also really hard to keep the "indie" feel once one of the largest companies in the world owns you. Instead they focus on funding small projects from their 1st parties (Pentiment, Hi-Fi Rush) and ID@Xbox.
I mean, they have their flaws, but there is no company that has been more friendly and valuable to indie game development in the last decade then MS. Publish your game though ID@Xbox and you get free tech support, access to tools to port it to Switch and PC, multiplayer cross platform support, and MS handles CC processing and refunds at no extra cost. All for as little as 8% of your gross. They are not pushing for you to make your game exclusive, but a lot of them end up on Game Pass. I would say there is a new high tier indie game on the service every week or so. They also used to get all Humble Games releases, not sure if that's still a thing (the deal OR the publisher)
It's like Steam, if Steam wasn't evil. Or was ... I guess, slightly less evil.
Publishing a game on the Switch eshop is a nightmare, but manageable. They want 15%, which honestly isn't that bad.
Before Sony will let your game on their platform you need to prove it doesn't support cross platform multiplayer, buy and then publicly destroy a Xbox and Switch, and let them flog you while you chat "I need you more then you need me, my Masters". You get zero support, and if it's not your first ever game, they might take 30%.
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
@Purgatorium
I mean the effects are cumulative. In fact, 10 small but well received games that are all exclusive are more likely to drive sale then a single exclusive smash hit. Heck, for Sony to turn around their disastrous start to the PS3 generation, it took 12 exclusives in one year.
Re: Splatoon 3's 'Splatoween' Splatfest Kicks Off This Weekend, Which Team Gets Your Vote?
So far for me it looks like Team Wizard cast a spell that made the other teams disappear ...
But I guess when the choices are dude in armor, dude in PJs, or dude with powers over the elemental forces of the universe ... it's going to be pretty one sided.
Re: Microsoft Talks About Extending Its Gaming Content To 'New Platforms'
The red line for MS is always going to be system utilization. Contrary to popular belief, the PS5 and Xbox S/X are fundamentally different from each other in meaningful ways. Even more contrary, the Xbox X when utilized fully is a more capable machine. But if you're making a cross platform game, you generally just code it in an environment independent API and call it a day. Going back and changing the way it uses VRAM on Xbox to get a 2% increase in power is a non-starter.
But if you're making a console exclusive, you don't do that. You use a extremely environment dependent API that utilizes what each system does differently to the fullest. This doesn't effect PC ports because PC is scalable, but if you take a game like Halo, which milks every FLOP the Xbox has on offer and port it to PS5 ... it's going to run like garbage unless you scale back the output(1). You would need to remove all the "Xbox go fast stuff" and replace it with all the "PS5 go fast stuff" to make them comparable, and that's time consuming and expensive. It's so time consuming that both the Sea of Thieves and Hi-Fi Rush ports on PS5 are ports of the Series S game, scaled up to PS5 hardware ... not a direct port of the much more demanding Series X games that utilize "Xbox go fast stuff".
Because of this, I think Nintendo will get more games then PlayStation, seeing the Switch is comparable to the Series S and ports are really easy.
Remember, no decision made by any company on earth is made for any reason other then money. They will port every game that's profitable to port. That is absolutely not all games. In fact, when speaking to 1st party, it's likely not even that many.
1 - Well, I mean ... it wouldn't actually run. It would address RAM, VRAM, and storage incorrectly. But like, if you just converted all that to standard addressing, it would run poorly.
Re: Review: Yakuza Kiwami (Switch) - A Decent Port Of An Ambitious, Frustrating Game
While this is great review that captures a given take on the game, for people who are still unsure as to if they should try it out, let me offer a slightly different take.
This is one of the best video games ever made, in one of the best series in existence.
While the switch is obviously not the best place to play it, if it's your only opinion, you should take it. Yes, the gameplay is a little wonky and the difficulty spikes if you don't just spam items to win every encounter ... but honestly, that's not the point! This game is an opportunity to run around in one of the wildest, weirdest, and most enjoyable game worlds every created.
It's like if every Western stereotype about Japan was true, but one man missed the joke and is taking everything at face value and SUPER serious.
Can't recommend enough.
Re: Talking Point: What Is Nintendo Thinking Trying To Keep The Lid On This Playtest Program?
They are not.
An NDA requires informed, signed consent. As someone who has playtested a lot of games and software, it's not something taken lightly. It's also common for builds of a beta project to include identifiers built into the output so it's impossible to post something online without outing yourself as the leaker.
Nintendo isn't doing any of this, so they have made no serious effort to keep it secrets. They made a non-binding request.
So why say anything? Hey remember that article yesterday where Nintendolife talked about the leak without posting any details instead of writing a full article on the details of the playtest? Yeah that's why.
It's actually the best of both worlds. Any game site that doesn't want to piss off Nintendo isn't going to write a article about the leaks, and there is also no point in them writing article speculating about what it is because ... we already know.
So the people who proactively want to get details about this test before it's final can go do that. They would have done that anyways. But people who are not looking for that information are far less likely to be exposed to it, and far less likely to form an opinion based on an incomplete product.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@8bit-Man
Thanks for the shoutout, it means a lot to me.
I think people's hearts are in the right place. We only ever hear about large corporations suing people, and no one is writing any articles about how Kelly from Montana patented some novel idea and lived off the residuals.
When bad news is all we get, it's easy to assume all news is bad.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@JohnnyMind
Let's say I'm Nintendo. I patent a bunch of ways to transfer and store data about creatures in my creature collecting game.
Then Palworld comes out.
If I think that it's too similar to my creature collecting game, I would need to turn to TRADEMARK law, not patents. And trademark law would tell me I'm out of luck, because you're allowed to copy gameplay elements all you want.
But I could still sue them for Trademark violation, knowing I would lose. I could then ask for a settlement that is lower then the cost of litigation. Give me $500,000, or I'll make you spend $1,000,000 in court. This is common. This happens all the time. It would be a gamble in this case because if the defendant had enough money, they could use anti SLAPP laws to sue to recover legal costs.
To sue for patent violation, I first need to file for discovery and look at the games code. This costs me a LOT of money, because I need both legal and technical experts. Once I find data formats or data transfer protocol that look like the ones I have a patent for, I file a notice of intent, giving the defendant an opportunity to "show their work' on how they independently developed the systems. Only after they fail to do so can I sue.
You can't just target someone with a patent suit. There is a lot of leg work involved. It is much easier to just target someone with an IP violation. Another important point is that the judgement in patent lawsuits are MUCH lower. This suit is for $6 million. Most corporates lawyers wouldn't get out of bed for that much! That's because all you can sue for is the market value of the patent. With IP law, you can sue for whatever value you assign to your IP, and tack on punitive damages up to a percentage of the total net worth of the defendant.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@Lightsiyd
No judgment, I'm just trying my best to make the discourse here as pleasant as possible for as many people as possible.
"There's something I want to be clear on - are you claiming that Nintendo has a right over the concept itself based on a bit of coding, or are you saying they have a right over a very specific "coding syntax" for lack of a better word?"
I would suggest that you're going to get a lot better traction if you instead word that as "Can you explain exactly how having patent for game code works". Including a phrase like "are you claiming" is by nature confrontational, and is a tactic used in aggressive discourse to force a person to defend themselves instead of focus on the argument they made. A lot of people might be put off by it and answer your question with similar aggression.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@JohnnyMind
I feel ya, but at the same time, that's just how the law works. You have no particular problem with patents, you're just concerned with how capitalism corrupts a legal system. Couldn't agree more on that part.
In order to sue for patent violation, you have to have a patent, and you have make a preliminary case for violation by proving that the infringing product at least COULD violate your patent.
To sue for copyright or trademark infringement you can point at someone and scream "GIVE ME YOUR MONEY".
So if I have a ton of money and just want to sue someone for stealing my "idea", I have to use IP law unless I already obtained a patent, and the patent needs to be valid.
Trademarks, by definition, are only obtainable by large companies seeing they are dependent on recognition. Patents are obtainable by anyone.
So one system is extremely subjective and only benefits the megarich. The other is much more structured and benefits everyone, at least in theory. It's hard to make an argument that the second one is worse.
Also there are, on average, 15 software patent suits filed every single day. I do not find the fact that two of them over the course of a month both relate to gaming companies odd at all. If you looked into all patents filed in the months before the Palworld suit, I'm sure you'll find dozens that targets video games. The only difference is reporting on them back then wouldn't generate engagement. That's the only thing Nintendo going after Palworld changed.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@Lightsiyd
Gameplay Machinic - "Catch things in balls"
Patentable aspect - This exact data format https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Save_data_structure_(Generation_IV)
How to make a game where you catch things in balls without violating the patent - Use a different format for your data.
Alternate solution - Use the same data format and pay Nintendo a couple of cents for every unit you sell.
Only way to get sued - Use the exact same data format but try and hide it from Nintendo so you don't have to pay.
If you have any other questions, I'm more then happy to answer them, but if I'm being honest I could really do without the jumping to the worst possible concussion part.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
@JohnnyMind
I'm not sure I understand your concern. Patents have very little to do with gaming in general, and the patents in question are all related to technical processes which SEGA invested billions to develop and license to other companies. They have nothing to do with "gameplay". Gameplay isn't something you can patent.
Patents are an important vertical (revenue stream) for gaming developers (or any software company), because it means if you invest time and effort into solving a problem, like for example, how to handle multithreading on phone chips that don't support it by default, you can sell that innovation even if the value it adds to the one project you are working on is minimal.
More importantly, it's means that if someone like me, who has no connection to a large company and just codes in my spare time, comes up with something useful ... I can protect it. Without patents no one could ever do that. You couldn't even try and sell your innovation because as soon as you explained what your innovation did to a large company, they would just steal it.
I have two software patents. Dose that makes me an evil person who is destroying gaming?
Patents are always available to use at market value. You can't "deny" a patent. They do not gatekeep anything. Lawsuits come from people using them without disclosing that, not from the patent owner not being willing to license them. Based on the number of DLs, the licensing few SEGA set for these patents is around 0.003 USD pre use.
Hardly world ending.
Re: SEGA Seeks 1 Billion Yen In Damages From Developer Of Mobile RPG 'Memento Mori'
To be clear, the patents are NOT for "gameplay mechanics". They are for coding and technical processes that support the mechanics.
Gameplay is not covered by patent law, it's covered by trademark. And trademark law clearly says that no gameplay element or mechanic is eligible for protection.