I hear ya. But I would say don't look at it as "trust". Reviews are supposed to be bias. The whole point of having so many review sites if you find one that matches you own personal bias, rating games you like that other people don't highly, while rating popular games you don't like lowly, and you go with that one! Not because it's the "best" or the "most objective", but because it's the one that's closest to your personal tastes. And when you look at GameSpot ... being extremely bias towards PlayStation while crapping on Nintendo and Microsoft is going to appeal to a lot of people.
You're totally right about the 5 thing, but there is a reason. You don't have to worry about going to a film and it just cutting out after 50 minutes. At every outlet I've freelanced for, scores lower then 3 were reserved for games that simply didn't work. 4 is the absolutely worst score you can give a "working" game. It's effectively a 1.
Oh, you might have forgotten to do the GameSpot math. To get the REAL score, take the review, add one if it's not a PlayStation exclusive, or add 2 if it's exclusive to another console, given that they automatically remove that much in each of those cases.
Now I know that sounds like a joke and it obviously kinda is ... but actually if you look at GameSpot's deviation from the average score on most games ... it's scary how accurate it is.
Reviews are not "opinions". They are subjective statements of fact.
To be an opinion, you need to limit the statement to your own experience and not justify it.
Opinion - "I didn't like this game. I found it unenjoyable".
Subjective statement of fact - "I think this game is bad because [reason]".
This is a really common misconception. The reason an opinion can't be wrong is because you're simply describing your perception of reality, something no one else can experience. You can't "justify" thinking the world is flat or gravity is a lie because it's your "opinion". You're just wrong.
Redfall was released in an unfinished state. The Eurogamer review is saying that the subjective negative of a game where textures do not load, the AI was broken and resulted in most enemies not moving, hit detection on enemies was broken to the point where they couldn't hit you with melee attacks, and several areas essential to the plot not loading, preventing progress past the 2nd act is not as bad as the subjective negative of "you can't play all the mini games in all modes".
That is simply an invalid statement. Period. They said it for the engagement.
Look, I totally get personal taste. I think it's a very positive thing that reviewers have their own bias and are not shy about it, because that lets us find a reviewer who's bias aligns with our own. But that said ...
There is NO POSSIBLE UNIVERSE where a Mario Party game is legitimately this divisive. It's Mario Party.
The fact that Eurogamer rated it lower then they rated Redfall is just a horrible statement about the state of the industry. There is simply no way to call that anything other then sensationalism.
I don't know that I agree. Discussing our personal options on Nintendo's leadership and how it effects Nintendo as a company is completely on topic.
The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund is the SINGLE LARGEST private stake holder in Nintendo, even after the resent sell off. When Nintendo decides who leads the company, they get 10% of the vote. That's not insignificant.
Nintendolife wouldn't post articles about leadership, stock price, and market position at all if they didn't think it was relevant.
It might make people uncomfortable, and I totally get not wanting to think of the difficult realities around private companies while you're just trying to enjoy a video game ... but that doesn't make it off topic.
You bring up another big difference between Western and Eastern FTP ... the amount of free currency you get. Chinese and Korean games give enough that you generally can get by, and Japanese games just hand the stuff out like crazy.
In what is likely the most important mobile game ever made, Hello Kitty World 2, I have like $200 of currency at any given point. Atelier Resleriana gives so much free currency on top of free pulls that you'll have no problem getting most SSRs ... paid gems are only really there for people who want to choose. I worked out the amount of money you would need to spend to get all the gems and free pulls that game gave out sense launch and it's like 150000 Yen, which is about $1000. But at the same time, before a resent change you needed to spend $60 to guarantee you get a character you wanted (after the change it's the FAR more reasonable ... $45). And I'm fine with that. Crazy rich people who can toss around $60 like it's nothing paying for the development of a game I get to play for free? Yes please.
I think a lot of people are missing out on some great games you never have to pay a dime to play because they judge all mobile games based on their experiences with the worst ones out there.
You're not wrong, but the psychology is largely the same. Even without a hard limit, you know the odds. So if you go into a game that costs $1 where your chance of getting the SSR is 1:100 and think "This SSR will cost me $100 68% of the time, more then that but less then $200 27% of the time and over $300 0.03% of the time" and are fine with that ... you're all good.
The same way if you go into one with a hard cap thinking "This will cost me (hard cap)"
The problem is that most people don't. Most people go in thinking they are special and math doesn't apply to them so they will get it long before that. So they get mad when math does, in fact, apply. Or, maybe they just don't understand probably at even a basic level.
I think we're both basically saying the same thing, there is nothing wrong with the mechanic, you just have to go in with the right mindset and act responsibility.
I don't think not wanting to support people who will use the money to assassinate their enemies and murder 10s of 1000s of innocent people is a political statement. I think that's the base expectation of a human being.
And while I would never call for or support something impractical like boycotting a company because one of their majority stakeholders is "bad", I do think that suggesting we ignore this completely IS a political statement, as it's a statement of support for the political ideology of tyranny.
"Don't murder people" and "Don't care that people are murdering people" are not two opposing political ideologies. One is a statement about the bare minimum expected of a human being, the other is a justification of how ideology can excesses people from that expectation. Only that second one is "political".
So I would actually argue that it's only the people saying that we shouldn't care or talk about the government that is murdering people who are making the argument about politics or "getting political". The people suggesting with SHOULDN'T ignore that are just ... decent humans, doing the bare minimum expected of humans.
I mean that's the core social divide he's talking about when he say that they don't go over well in the West.
On the buyer side In Japan, and most of SEA, you spend 300 yen on a gacha and your mindset is "I'll get what I get and like it". You don't spend the money unless you are okay with the worst prize, because you understand how math works and how that's what you are likely going to get. Anything above that is a bonus.
On the seller side, most of the time games use limited edition or exclusive items so they have no real "value" outside the game, but when the game includes prizes with objective costs, like gacha games at liquor stores, the price of the draw is generally the same as (or even less then) the prize of the worst prize. It's a marketing ploy to sell more, not improve profit.
Move over to the West, and the mindset is "I won the birth lottery and deserve everything" coupled with a healthy dose of being told every single day that if you don't have all the best material goods you are a worthless sub human monster that has no right to exist, and it doesn't really land as well. People play them not just because they want the SSR, but because they EXPECT it, because math doesn't apply to the main character in a story. So when they don't get it they get really really angry.
On the seller side, profit is king and your customers can die in a ditch for all you care. Pulls are like 20 times the price of the lowest cost item and it's only if you get a top tier prize that you get anything close to a good deal. This is true in games with a NA distributor, as NA publishers ALWAYS charge way, way more for each pull then even the same game where the publisher is native to SEA.
So it's like ... they would hate them even if it was the same, but they are not the same, they are worse.
"So rather then use the Japanese model that relays on mechanics like this, you're just going to release a Utopian game where everything is free and we all get a pony!??"
-"What? No, obviously not. We're just going to follow the ***** American model were you get bombarded by ads and everything is behind a pay gate"
"Oh. Yeah, I guess I should have seen that coming. Could you maybe give me a few more details on the monetization you will be using?".
-"It will take me 7 hours to answer that question. Would you like me to answer it now for $4.99?"
Thank you for sharing your copyright fan fiction with me! Honestly, I think it's great.
I'll just cut and paste the actual law, which I repeat, Daly admits he broke.
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(1) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
The law is deliberately written so how you break the lock or what the lock is doesn't matter. If someone includes any protection on their device that controls a users access to that device, circumventing it in any way is illegal. If I put out a device with a indented button that can't easily be pushed that gives you root access, but in the EULA says "You're not allowed to push that button", then pushing it is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. In fact it's probably illegal to push it even without an EULA, as long as it's clear that pushing it gives you access to protected features and requires deliberate effort. The indent is a "lock". The thing you used to push it is a device that circumvented the lock.
It is pretty ridiculous, in fact. Many legal scholars call it the single most far reaching and broadly defined statute that has ever existed. But it's also the law, and has survived no less then 200 legal challenges.
You're free to go on believing whatever you want. I can't stop you. I'm just here to help inform the opinions of people who want to base that opinion on facts and evidence. You're clearly not interested in that, so I have nothing to offer you. Please feel free to pass my comments by in the future.
I mean, it's possible that's a regional variation where you are from or within a given subcultural group. Language is generally very morphic.
I'm hardly an expert on Black youth culture, but the DRS song "Gangsta Lean" references pouring one out for dead "homies" as an act of respect, and in America the custom is so popular in "rap" culture that it has it's own variation as "Tipping to your dead homie". So I don't think that idea that it's reserved for people in jail is universal, or even common.
But the idea of pouring out a drink in reverence, called "libation", is culturally trensendent. It has independent roots in Europe, Indo-Pacific, and Africa. Honestly, maybe the author did mean what you're saying. But It's not a great idea to use a phrase the overwhelming majority of people will take one meaning from, when you mean something different based on a variation in a small or isolated language group, unless you have reason to believe your audience is made up primarily of that group.
It's also exactly the type of thing an editor will point out, and something most public writers try really hard not to do.
And really ... even in the case you're describing it's still an act of respect.
The accusations are clearly listed in a document linked in the article, as well as his response. I can not stress enough that he entered "no contest" to the 1201 civil violation, admitting he has no defense against the charge. You are trying to defend someone who isn't defending themselves. You are suggesting that he wasn't doing anything illegal after he has admitted that what he was doing was illegal. He is only trying to argue down possible criminal charges by disputing details that make his actions a more serious crime.
Beyond that, everything you've said is categorically false.
I would strongly advice you to read Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes), 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001), RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (2009), and MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010), as well as the 27 cases cited in these decisions for the relevant precedent around article 1201 before making any more definitive statements.
At the very least, please read the full article and linked items before diving into the discourse.
I think you have a core misunderstanding about how shares work.
Nintendo went private in 1962, which is when the majority of shares were issued. That was, effectively, the last time anyone bought shares FROM Nintendo.
The shares The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund own were bought from private share holders. Nintendo isn't involved in the exchange and can't do anything to stop it. This isn't like some deal they agreed to or anything.
That's how it works for any public company. You have zero control over who buys you shares. It's even possible to buy shares in a way that the company doesn't know who owns them, and any exchanges or sales of these shares are not tracible. Again, that's just how they work. No company can "opt out" of that system.
If you want to boycott companies that The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund owns shares in, honestly power to you!
But you can't play video games, period.
They own 40 billion of Microsoft, and while their stake in Sony is relatively small at around a billion, they own a larger stake in Sony percentage wise given how much higher Microsoft's market cap. is.
They own around 10 billion of NVidia and 4 billion of AMD, so PC gaming isn't an option.
They also own about a billion of Apple, and around 5 billion in Alphabet (Google's parent).
This doesn't includes the billions they have in holding funds which in turn invest in the tech sector.
In fact you can't really even use a computer or read this website. Awkward.
Again, I would really encourage you to carefully read what I post before replying. I'm honestly trying to help you understand the issue.
Like I mention, challenging the DMCA isn't "long over due". It has been challenged several hundred times already, including several high profile challenges to section 1201 alone that made it to the supreme court.
It has been upheld and affirmed as enforceable in every single one of those challenges around 1201, as well as all but a handful of total challenges. The only successful arguments has been when research exemptions have been denied or when safe harbor was ignored in issuing a take-down notice. In these cases the law itself wasn't being challenged ... in fact it was the opposite; it's was people arguing that the right granted to them by the DMCA were being denied by a IP holder.
You can't challenge it again on any of the grounds already covered, and all the common arguments people make have already been tried and failed.
You don't have to like that, but the first step in doing anything about it is accepting the reality of the situation.
If you have a strong opinion on an issue and you want to make meaningful change, you need to start by informing your opinion and having a solid understanding of context. Without that, your arguments won’t hold any weight and you’re not helping your position, and can't add to the conversation with others seeking the same change you are. In this case, for example, you should start by reading the reply from Daly.
He does not deny his criminal activity and pleads no content to the 1201 violation. He’s only denying specific claims that would lead to a more sever penalty.
You are literally defending someone who has made a binding legal statement that there is no defense for there actions and they will not challenge the claim that they violated the law.
I'm simply trying to help you inform your opinion, so you're better equipped to actively seek change regarding this issue that seems important to you. It's for your benefit, and I would encourage you to absorb this new information I'm providing you with rather then attempting to defend your pervious position.
Clearing up some other things, the process of overturning a law (judicial review) is part of the appellate process, and you need standing to appeal on the grounds that the law is unenforceable. Not only isn’t that possible with a plea of no content, but it wouldn’t be possible in this case because universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley and RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association already upheld section 1201 as enforceable under these circumstances.
You are also accountable to the laws on the date you committed the crime. There are millions of people in jail, some serving life sentences, for drug offences that are no longer criminal.
If you commit a crime before the law is changed to make what you did legal, you are still a criminal and still have to serve your sentence. A code of law isn’t about morality. It’s about obedience.
You're welcome to an opinion on the law, but it doesn't CHANGE the law. HIs actions are unquestionable illegal, as they violate Section 1201 of the DMCA.
It would be like someone selling cocaine on a website. You're free to argue that they should have the right to do so. But they don't, and as such, are a criminal.
This is a for profit site. Literally every word typed by every staff member has the primary purpose of driving engagement to appear more valuable to advertisers. It's not a charity. No one is trying to inform our opinions out of the kindness of their heart.
I know people don't like to think of "news" in that light, but I've been part of the game and that's just how it's played.
Edit: Just to note, I didn't find that confrontational at all given it didn't contain any personal attacks, and I welcome you or anyone else to ask questions like that. I'm not infallible, and part of why I'm here to learn from others.
"Pouring one out" is a tradition dating back 1000s of years in several cultures where you empty a glass of wine (or other beverages in modern times) over the grave of the recently deceased. It is an act of reverence and respect.
Language is morphic and subjective, sure, but any argument of "Maybe they mean it in a non-respectful way" is easily countered by "maybe professional writers reviewed by an editor-in-chief shouldn't use language that MIGHT be seen as respect for criminals"
I mean ... it's their website and they are free to express that opinion if they want. They also have every right to use language like that on their own site to create engagement by manipulating people sympathetic to piracy to post (which is likely what is happening here). I just personally don't think it's a good look.
Being a member of the LGTB community is punishable by torture and death. There are verified reports of members of the LGTB+ community who left the country and come out else where being assassinated by the state.
Speaking out in support of the LGTB+ community is punishable by death, either as blasphemy or as treason. There are, again, varied stories of extrajudicial assassinations of journalists or activists native to the country who left to promote LGTB+ rights.
In 2015 the government stated an official task force to pose as gay men on dating apps and aggressively attempt to arrange meetings which individuals seeking partners in the country. Several reports suggest they are given the choice of "outing" people they have had relationships with or facing prison, torture, or death.
Beyond that official law, citizens who take it upon themselves to murder individuals who they believe may be members of the LGTB+ community are rarely charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
And while I totally agree that we shouldn't fault people for not being informed if they are seeking information (we only know what we know, after all), in this case this is simply objective fact verifiable by a simple internet search and something you should probably have informed yourself of before making this comment on a gaming website..
I mean, there are a lot of laws I don't agree with, but I still follow them and would expect to be punished if I didn't. Not only is what happened here a clear violation of civil and possibility criminal law, but Nintendo offered him a way to end litigation, which he agreed to .. and then broke.
I don't think we should sympathize with people who willingly and blatantly break not only laws, but their own personal commitments. It seems odd that the headline seems to suggest we should.
You've already been corrected about a dozen times, so I just wanted to add an important fact that seems to be overlooked in a lot of the replies.
Mohammed bin Salman is an absolute despot. There is no separation between him and the state. Every aspect of life, every law and every policy is the way it is because he made it so. There is no system of opposition. There are no checks and balances. There is no "other voice". If he was a chill guy, he could simply wave his hand and remove every oppressive law, grant protections to any and all minority groups, and as a bonus use around 3% of his net worth to end poverty in not only his country, but every surrounding nation.
It's important to look at things in context. This isn't a like a president or prime minister who maybe wants better for their people but lacks the power to make meaningful change. This is an absolute authority with near unlimited power.
Shout out to @martynstuff for the great info at the top of this. This information is spot on, but I wanted to add some specific details.
Specific to Nintendo, their founding articles include a "poison pill" clause, which allows the largest stake holder to simple issue new shares if threatened with a takeover.
Specific to Japan, if a company founded in Japan is subject to a majority takeover by an entity outside of Japan, the government has the power to give control of the company back to it's original founders or a line of succession chosen in a way outlined in the founding documents (or, technically, anyone in Japan if nether of those options are viable). Everyone gets to keep their shares, but it's now effectively run as a private company, with the board of directors and all executives positions no longer voted in by shareholders. Combine this was the first point and one of the first things this new board will do is issue enough new shares to dilute the value and ensure the majority of shares return to Japan.
While not technically impossible, trying to hostilely take over a Japanese company is a really bad investment. You take on a ton of risk to enter a highly regulated market that is openly hostile to foreign investment. There are simply better ways to spend your money.
Are you sure? Maybe it's just a Switch thing, because their entire library is literally on sale RIGHT NOW on steam. Ryza 2 is 60% off and 3 is 40% off. Warriors All Stars is 75% off.
I would say they have a sale like this every 3 months or so on PC, as well as discounting select games for all steam sales. They have a sale like this twice a year on PlayStation as well.
I own basically every title on PlayStation or PC, but the only one I did get on Switch ... I got because it was on sale.
<shrug>
Could it be a region thing? Maybe you need to make some accounts in other areas and look for sales there.
Ryza 3 moved around 400,000 units before it's first discount, so just using that number and ignoring later sales, the way to make it profitable is to make the game for less then $24 million.
I think big budget games cause us to lose perspective. The early Atelier games were made on budgets in the $2 to $5 million range, meaning they were extremely profitable with only 100,000 or so unit sales. And given only 7% of the series sales are from NA, they are more popular then most people think.
It's also Japan. It's not like the US where a game is considered a failure unless it makes the CEO a billion dollars in excuses capital. Games are successful at zero, because just making your budget back means everyone, including the developers, artists and executives gets paid because labor costs are part of your budget.
They are also merchandised to all heck. There are two Anime series and a dozen mangas. Heck, the games might be profitable off body pillows alone!
It had 3 million downloads a year ago, at least 1 million more this year, meaning more people "touched" it then any other game in the franchise by at least a factor of 5. Heck, the entire Ryza SERIES has only seen 2 million units sold.
I totally get if this isn't your thing. I personally think it's totally worth free, and that's hardly a ringing endorsement. But it's HUGE. It was responsible for like 30% of KOEI's revenue at a point. And while it's the first to get localized in English, it's the 3rd Mobile game and the other two were huge hits as well. So a sequel is not surprising at all.
I'm not offended, just want to make sure people have an accurate idea of what the game is like. I also totally respect other's opinions, which is why my post affirmed your opinion and only focused on the factually inaccurate portrayal of the game as a black sheep in the series.
I always try to make sure people can inform their opinions based on evidence. Like the "gacha" aspect. If you've played since the Japanize release, you've gotten around 900 free pulls, plus 10 characters for free and the choice of two others. That, mathematically, means you should have around 80% of all the charterers. I don't know anyone playing Hell Divers, WoW or Destiny 2 for a year that has 80% of the loot!
Random drops and not getting all the "rare" items is a thing in almost all video games. But it often is only a BAD thing in mobile games, and that seems weird to me. So I like to take a moment to put that in perspective when people bring it up.
Where in Canada are you? I'm in Canada almost any time I'm not in Japan. Generally in or around the GTA, so luckily I don't have the internet problem. I mean it still kinda sucks paying 10 times as much for half the speed you get in rural Wakayama but hey, whatcha gonna do?
Around 10,000 CD keys for Far Cry 2 were deactivated on PC. No reason was given other then to say it was intentional, it was never fixed. If you own one of the CDs with that key, you can't install your physical disk.
Early physical copies of Driver: San Francisco are not playable due to them falling DRM checks (on PC) or giving a cryptic error message (on console). Digital copies and some later re-released physical copies still work. While they didn't give full details, Ubisoft said it was due to a licensing issue with the early releases.
That's the 2 I was thinking of. There are other legacy DOS and Windows games where the online verification or DRM server is no longer online, making physical disks unplayable, but I don't remember any particulars.
Other examples that are a little different include Wipe Out: Pure and Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, which were unintentionally made unplayable by a PSP update. Physical copies no longer work, although a later update allowed people with a physical copy to download a working digital update. Importantly, they were not legally required to do so, and for a while it looked like they weren't going to.
Physical copies of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas won't play because of music license issues, although you can download an updated digital copy if you own one. The digital copy is incompatible with any of your previous saves from the physical game, however. That went over GREAT.
Guitar Hero Live sorta counts too. While playable, almost half the songs on the physical disc can't be used any more.
There have only been 2 or 3 games I know of where the physical game was made unplayable. But that's still a non-zero number.
Even if it wasn't, the option is there. That's all I'm trying to point out. Having a physical copy doesn't make you "safe". The license owner can still revoke your right to play the game at any time for any reason, and force the platform owner to make it unplayable even in a physical format.
The only way to be "safe" would be meaningful laws that changed software ownership in general, not token, meaningless laws that target digital games because that's a buzzword.
There is nothing at all wrong with that argument, but it's important to note it comes with a cavoite. Legally, their is nothing stopping the game's developer, publisher, or the platform owner from pushing an update that makes the game's physical copies unplayable on your device. This has happened to a number of games in the past, generally around licensed music expiring.
Sure, you can either hack your console or role-back to a firmware that doesn't lock you out, but doing either breaks the TOS and mean you are technically doing something illegal. And if you're willing to do something illegal to play a game .. well, the whole conversation is moot isn't it? You have better options!
The problem isn't digital games. The problem is how software ownership as a whole is handled.
Based on reports from the numerous industry groups, around 98% of all digital games are playable today, with the 2% mostly being made up of live service games where you can't play physical copies either.
By contrast, factoring in the natural decay of CDs/DVDs, lost or stolen copies, and damage due to accident or natural disaster, only around 80% of physical games purchased since 2003 (the year Steam came out) are playable today.
So simply by the numbers, the average person with a completely digital library has access to more of their games then the average person with a completely physical library.
I mean ... you don't own you physical games either, you are just licensing the software on whatever media it comes on. You also don't own the software running your console. Or your computer. Unless you choose to never go online for any reason, "they" can make your physical games unplayable at any time with OS updates (and have done this before, mostly around music license issues) , or even brick your console to force you to buy a new one.
This is a brilliant move by pro-business groups to put forth a law that completely ignores the actual problem; that all software is licensed, while attacking the buzz word that is "DIGITAL GAMES" to ensure the masses blindly support it and stop asking for real, meaningful change.
As a percentage, the number of Japanese developers that offer either hetero focused masculine eye candy or full on homoerotic experiences is significantly higher then Western developers.
Most Yakuza games put Zak Snyder's "300" to shame when it comes to gratuitous oiled up shirtless bodies, you can rock out as Lanz, Zeke or Reyn in Xenoblades complete with swimsuit goodness (or just keep replying the section where Vandham is in your party for maximum hunkness), Danti from DMC is ripped and allergic to undershirts, Nier Gestalt spends the whole game shirtless rocking a 6-pac, Robot Tactic X if you want some FTP buffness ... that's just off the top of my head. Not to mention any historic epic dealing with the 3 kingdoms period has more buff dudes in it then a issue of "Flex" magazine.
Heck, even in the Atelier series you have Lent and Sterk, both playable in multiple games.
You sure your problem isn't with the abundance of female PCs, rather then the lack of males?
I'll never get the hate for mobile games. And while you're obviously free to dislike them or not play them, the overwhelming majority of "Atelier fans" absolutely loved all 3 of the mobile games. Resleriana in particular is well loved given it has one of the best stories in modern games, features the original Japanese voice cast for almost every character in the series, and does a really great job of mixing the "seriousness" of the modem games with the whimsy of the older ones with the off kilter seasonal events. Probably why it was successful enough to warrant KOEI buying it fully from the publisher, a manga, and a spin-off.
It's also got a 4.2 on Google and a 4.5 on Apple.
So hate mobile games all you want. Make comments about how upset you are about the exitance of a free experience that (like almost all Japanese FTP games) features no ads, never directs you to buy anything as part of normal play, and has no pay-gated content all you want!
But maybe stop short of suggesting it's a universal disliked affront to the series that requires a "redemption" arc or an apology. That part is simply not true. It's popular and well liked, and is bringing even more fans to the series, allowing for bigger budgets for the core games.
Palworld could be a 1:1 copy for Pokémon, in every conceivable way, and not violate patent law. Even in the case where you just made the same game and changed nothing, that's a Trademark violation. As such, I tagged most people trying to focus the conversation on if Pocketpairs "stole ideals" from Pokémon. That's irrelevant. You can steal all the ideas!
Sadly I'm pretty sure when we learn of the exact patent at the center of the case, the media will simplify it and call it a "Patent on (gameplay element)" when it really is a patent on the back-end computer systems supporting it and the suit isn't about stealing an idea, but stealing actual code. And the cycle will continue!
Nintendo has a valid suit, it's just not about how similar the games are. It's about violating Nintendo's patents on technical computer logic or code. Since you had a strong opinion but a core misunderstanding of how patents work, I figured you would appreciate someone helping you inform your opinion.
The patents deal with computer systems that support the mechanics and how they are implemented in code. Patents are 100s of pages long and not meant to be understood by you or me. Namco, for example, doesn't have the patent on "games on loading screens". They have a patent on a very specific type of multitasking logic, and it would be extremely difficult to code a game on a loading screen without violating it.
Edit: Just to make it even more clear, I actually have a friend who has patented "A system to combine ingredients and subject them to heat to create an edible product". Sadly, he doesn't get royalties every time someone cooks a meal. The patent covers a very specific factory layout and the machines that support it.
No one can patent a game mechanic. Game mechanics, gameplay rules, and game systems are defined as "“abstract ideas” and are not eligible for patents in part or in full. This has been a firmly established doctrine for 150 years, called "idea vs. expression".
You could release a game that is identical to Pokémon in every gameplay aspect. While you would be required to change design elements (like the names and number of types) to make your game distinct, that is covered by Trademark, not Patent law. Pathfinder did this to D&D 3rd edition. It's fine. It's 100% allowed.
You also can not file a patent for an existing work or "steal" a patent like that. This is such a common misconception that the Marvel show "She-Hulk" actually built an episode around how wrong yet often misquoted the idea is. If you can prove that an idea was commonly implemented before the patent was filed or that the patent is derivative of an existing system, then the patent is invalid. The only rub is that you might not be able to file for a patent either for the same reason even if you were the original designer.
Hello everyone! I thought this would be easier than making a bunch of comments. I wanted to clear up some core misconceptions about patents. I will not editorialize or make any comments about the case itself.
If you have strong opinions about if the laws should or shouldn’t be the way they are, that’s great. I do too, and under different conditions I would love to hear your opinions and talk about them. But please don’t reply to this post with those opinions, because with this post I'm not looking to argue options, I’m only looking to inform them. Thank you!
You absolutely can patent a character design, or even an overall astatic. It’s called a design patent. Samsung had to pay $539 million to Apple because of a design patent for rounded corners. Nintendo has a ton of design patents dealing with console and controller design, as well as amiibos.
Design patents are likely irrelevant here, because in Japan they are called “design registrations” and enforcement would cite “registration infringement”, not patent infringement.
The big one! You can not, in whole or in part, patent game machines, rule systems, or anything related to how a game is played. They are defined legally as “abstract ideas”, which are not eligible for patents. Any and all similarities between Palword in Pokémon in the way they play, their rules, or their core concepts are not protected by patent law, regardless of how similar they are, even if they are exactly the same. This legal doctrine is called "Idea vs. expression", and in almost all cases is covered by Trademark, not patent law.
Nintendo has attempted to patent the Pokémon battle system and the Pokémon card game’s core mechanics and rules. Both were denied as abstract ideas not eligible for patents.
Nintendo has several narrowly defined patents that cover very specific storage techniques, data compression, transmission methods, server logic, and other type of game code, and some specifically deal with details shared between Pokémon and Pals. They jointly hold these patients with The Pokémon Company, and seeing this is a joint filing, they are the most likely focus of the suit.
Example: Both Pokémon and Pal’s have IVs. That game system and anything related to it is not eligible for a patent. However, Nintendo does have a patent that covers very specific ways in which IVs are stored and transmitted at a code level. If Palworld uses those exact same techniques, they might be violating that patent.
I really hope this was valuable to you, and I hope you allow it to inform your opinion moving forward.
Given we don't even know what patent is at the center of lawsuit, this might as well be a fortune teller reading tea leaves.
As someone who always suggests people should listen to experts, I find few acts more deplorable then when someone knowingly uses the genetic fallacy to suggest their expertise in one area means they are somehow more qualified and we should listen to them in a unrelated area.
Being a "game analyst" doesn't mean you should be encouraging people to defer to you as an expert in a patent case. And even if you are a patent lawyer, you shouldn't encourage people to defer to you as an expert in fortune telling.
Not to mention this guys actual comments are just pure editorializing and offer no insight or clarification of the actual issue.
But I guess "Some random dude with no more expertise then any random commenter said something based on zero information" isn't a great headline.
The plot thickens! I don't have anyone blocked. I bet the system blocks post from people blocking you, and that's the 2 I'm not seeing. Although in that case, 2 out of 111 people blocking my walls of text seems low ...
As I explain elsewhere (and no shade on you for not wading though 300+ posts looking for my, albeit adorable, portrait), that's not the patent. If this is even the patent being challenged, which we don't know at this time, the patent application is 280 pages long, and the patent itself contains additional information you need to request.
It's language is designed to let developers know if they should take a closer look at the patent. A patent for "a way of combining ingredients and then subjecting them to heat to create an edible product" isn't a patent on the concept of cooking. It's going to be a patent for a specific, highly proprietary method involving specialized equipment because that's all you CAN patent. But you need to read all 280 pages, request the diagrams, and possibly file discovery for trade secrets if you want to know the full details.
That's because the patent database is not a tool intended for people to use to get angry at Nintendo by copying a paragraph from a 140,000 word document. It's intended to be used by patent lawyers with half a decade of education in patent law, spending 100s of hours deciding if their client's product might violate someone's patent.
It's interesting isn't it? This issue got a lot of buzz a while back with the release of "Child of Light", which clamed to be an "indie game" despite being developed in-house at Ubisoft Montreal. The games director argued that because his conditions for making the game included Ubisoft allowing him complete independence and them having no say at all in the finial product, he was part of an independent studio. It didn't matter that the funds came from an established developer and publisher or who owned the building he was working in.
He even made the argument that had he got the funds on Kickstarter (which was the style at the time!) he would be LESS independent, because he would be beholden to the promises he made to backers and couldn't make drastic changes if he felt they were necessary.
It's an interesting argument, and at the end of the day it's really up to you how you define the word for yourself.
So we've gone full circle. You commented on a post that suggested many people are posting based on emotional responses without understanding of the issue, and we conclude with you declaring you don't care if you understand the issue because you're commenting based on your emotional response.
That's your right. I certainly can't stop you from doing that. But the only reason I post is to help people inform their opinions, and if you're not interested in doing that, they have no value to you. Maybe skip them in the future?
Although one quick last note, if you read post 109 you'll see that hating corporations and having an informed opinion are not mutually exclusive. It just helps you make stronger arguments.
I would suggest that If you hit pause and spent some time trying to understand the patent system, you would realize that gaming systems and not eligible for patents in any forms, and your viewpoint is based on an emotional response to a misunderstanding of how software patents work.
I would also suggest that if you hit pause you might question if the 91 words you have quoted from a 280 page, 140,000 word technical patent application that doesn't include the 26 pages of accompanying diagrams it references does in fact represents a comprehensive understanding of what the patent covers.
While hitting pause to ask where the diagrams are, you might come across the fact that the doctrine of "Balance of Discloser" means that software patents applications do not generally include details required to fully understand their scope and that even as an expert with time to study the patent in full, you would need to subpoena discovery to fully understand it.
That might lead you to read about how software patents applications are general because they are designed to let developers know if the system they are working on might be covered. For example Microsoft owns several patents that say they cover "organizing data based on it's components", but that doesn't mean that Microsoft has patented the concept of data organization. Instead, is to let someone writing a database program know they might want to request the full text of this patent to learn what exact and narrowly defined techniques are covered.
While paused, you might consider the fact that judges in software patent cases generally spend MONTHS consulting with dozens of experts, and question if less then a day by one person who has incomplete access to the patent is adequate to form a solid understanding or draw conclusions.
You finally might question if dozens of excited posts that use definitive language and make direct accusations are appropriate when you consider the above information. You might even ask yourself if this is a conversation where you should be predominantly listening, rather then one where you should be predominantly talking.
There were 20 minutes between my comment and yours. Perhaps consider hitting pause for a bit longer. I think it's great your passionate! But temper that with understanding. Spend 100 minutes reading for every 1 minute you spend talking.
I didn't want to editorialize in my original comment, but that's more or less my personal opinion. While Nintendo, on a relative scale with other multinationals, actually has a pretty good record of treating employees and customers fairly, if push came to shove they, just like Poketpair and every other corporation, would happily murder your family and devoir their souls if they could turn a profit from that.
My own "strong emotional response" I have to hit pause on comes from seeing the Proletariat defending their Bourgeoisie oppressors. I do my best to address misconceptions and try and encourage informed decision making, but that just reminds me that I'll never be able to cut though the lifetime of propaganda and gaslighting we've all been subject to.
I'm involved in discourse that revolves around the premises that one of these companies is "in the right", and I wish I could instead argue that premise altogether. The very laws at play here were written by the insanely wealthy to prevent the common man from encroaching on their generational wealth. The only slight positive here is that Nintendo is using the tools generally reserved to subjugate the masses to instead attack another soulless corporation.
Thank you for pointing out I got their name wrong! I went back and corrected it.
"Indie" is mostly a subjective term, but it would be difficult to argue that Pocketpair, in jointly owning a subsidiary with a $109 billion company as well as raising much of the capital for their games though private investment, is "independent". Both Sony and the investors will have some involvement in decision making, and the license agreement in Sony includes bilateral commitments. Poketpair can not independently make decisions about this IP.
I think the idea that you stop being "independent" when you enter a multimillion dollar joint venture with one of the largest corporations in the world is not contraveral.
Concerned Ape is a huge outlier. And while he developed that game alone, he can no longer claim to be an independent developer given he has several licensing agreements with companies like Fangamer which will include bilateral commitments. While still just one guy, he is beholden to external influence to at least some degree and his interests and use of the IP extend outside gaming. He is no longer working as an independent developer, but instead as the sole proprietor of a conglomerate.
No judgement, but I think the thing I would have rather you focused on in my post was the idea of hitting pause. I think it might do you some good in this case,
Not to call you out, but just because visualizing money and large numbers is generally very difficult, I wanted to make a comment.
The average experienced software engineer in the US makes around $150,000, and the average creative lead with any experience makes around $250,000. You can get a “Game Programmer” right out of university for maybe $75,000, but you need experienced or extremely talented people if you want to make something with a small team.
The overhead on the physical studio, assuming 2 to 10 people, would be around $60,000 a year. Startup and equipment costs are somewhere around $50,000, with an additional $10,000 per employee.
A project with a budget of “millions of dollars” could be extremely unambitious. You would be hard pressed to take a game from start up to release for under a million dollars even with a team as small as 4 people. “Cuphead”, “Hades” and “Eastward” had budgets around $5 million. “Hollow Knight” was $6 million. “Starbound” cost $10-$12 million. Even “Stardew Valley” cost around $1.5 million, and that’s literally one guy. Undertail was also one person and cost around $500,000, as an example of how extremely barebones your production needs to be to pull off a game with a low budget.
Game development is EXPENSIVE. We shouldn’t judge a studio as “indie” or not based on the amount of capital they have, but on their relationship with outside investors, publishers, and other stakeholders. Jointly owning a subsidiary with a $109 billion company absolutely disqualifies Pocketpair from being “indie”.
Palworld cost less to make then Starbound, and Chucklefish is still a relatively small studio of 18 people. What disqualifies Pocketpals from saying they are “small” is their $40-$50 million in revenue combined with the fact that most of that was not reinvested in the company, and instead went to expanding into other verticals. You are a small studio if you can only afford a small team, not if you COULD afford to have a team of 100s, but instead decided to spend that money on other things.
While I apricate the shout our and the sentiment, this is wholly inaccurate.
Most people on this site are intelligent, reasonable, and complex individuals whos opinions and insights are extremely valuable. That's why I engage in discourse here!
However, many of them are making bad choices in how they process information.
"Smart" or "Reasonable" isn't a thing you are or are not. It's a choice you have to repeatedly make, and it's often a challenging and difficult one.
Comments 2,060
Re: Round Up: The Reviews Are In For Super Mario Party Jamboree
@Banjo-
I hear ya. But I would say don't look at it as "trust". Reviews are supposed to be bias. The whole point of having so many review sites if you find one that matches you own personal bias, rating games you like that other people don't highly, while rating popular games you don't like lowly, and you go with that one! Not because it's the "best" or the "most objective", but because it's the one that's closest to your personal tastes. And when you look at GameSpot ... being extremely bias towards PlayStation while crapping on Nintendo and Microsoft is going to appeal to a lot of people.
You're totally right about the 5 thing, but there is a reason. You don't have to worry about going to a film and it just cutting out after 50 minutes. At every outlet I've freelanced for, scores lower then 3 were reserved for games that simply didn't work. 4 is the absolutely worst score you can give a "working" game. It's effectively a 1.
Re: Round Up: The Reviews Are In For Super Mario Party Jamboree
@Banjo-
An 8 out of 10 instead of a 9 out of 10?
Oh, you might have forgotten to do the GameSpot math. To get the REAL score, take the review, add one if it's not a PlayStation exclusive, or add 2 if it's exclusive to another console, given that they automatically remove that much in each of those cases.
Now I know that sounds like a joke and it obviously kinda is ... but actually if you look at GameSpot's deviation from the average score on most games ... it's scary how accurate it is.
Re: Round Up: The Reviews Are In For Super Mario Party Jamboree
@electrolite77
Reviews are not "opinions". They are subjective statements of fact.
To be an opinion, you need to limit the statement to your own experience and not justify it.
Opinion - "I didn't like this game. I found it unenjoyable".
Subjective statement of fact - "I think this game is bad because [reason]".
This is a really common misconception. The reason an opinion can't be wrong is because you're simply describing your perception of reality, something no one else can experience. You can't "justify" thinking the world is flat or gravity is a lie because it's your "opinion". You're just wrong.
Redfall was released in an unfinished state. The Eurogamer review is saying that the subjective negative of a game where textures do not load, the AI was broken and resulted in most enemies not moving, hit detection on enemies was broken to the point where they couldn't hit you with melee attacks, and several areas essential to the plot not loading, preventing progress past the 2nd act is not as bad as the subjective negative of "you can't play all the mini games in all modes".
That is simply an invalid statement. Period. They said it for the engagement.
Re: Round Up: The Reviews Are In For Super Mario Party Jamboree
Look, I totally get personal taste. I think it's a very positive thing that reviewers have their own bias and are not shy about it, because that lets us find a reviewer who's bias aligns with our own. But that said ...
There is NO POSSIBLE UNIVERSE where a Mario Party game is legitimately this divisive. It's Mario Party.
The fact that Eurogamer rated it lower then they rated Redfall is just a horrible statement about the state of the industry. There is simply no way to call that anything other then sensationalism.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Reduces Its Stake In Nintendo
@Mr_Aks
I don't know that I agree. Discussing our personal options on Nintendo's leadership and how it effects Nintendo as a company is completely on topic.
The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund is the SINGLE LARGEST private stake holder in Nintendo, even after the resent sell off. When Nintendo decides who leads the company, they get 10% of the vote. That's not insignificant.
Nintendolife wouldn't post articles about leadership, stock price, and market position at all if they didn't think it was relevant.
It might make people uncomfortable, and I totally get not wanting to think of the difficult realities around private companies while you're just trying to enjoy a video game ... but that doesn't make it off topic.
Re: Sonic Rumble Mobile Game Won't Use Gacha As "Such Mechanics Tend To Be Shunned Overseas"
@AstroTheGamosian
You bring up another big difference between Western and Eastern FTP ... the amount of free currency you get. Chinese and Korean games give enough that you generally can get by, and Japanese games just hand the stuff out like crazy.
In what is likely the most important mobile game ever made, Hello Kitty World 2, I have like $200 of currency at any given point. Atelier Resleriana gives so much free currency on top of free pulls that you'll have no problem getting most SSRs ... paid gems are only really there for people who want to choose. I worked out the amount of money you would need to spend to get all the gems and free pulls that game gave out sense launch and it's like 150000 Yen, which is about $1000. But at the same time, before a resent change you needed to spend $60 to guarantee you get a character you wanted (after the change it's the FAR more reasonable ... $45). And I'm fine with that. Crazy rich people who can toss around $60 like it's nothing paying for the development of a game I get to play for free? Yes please.
I think a lot of people are missing out on some great games you never have to pay a dime to play because they judge all mobile games based on their experiences with the worst ones out there.
Re: Sonic Rumble Mobile Game Won't Use Gacha As "Such Mechanics Tend To Be Shunned Overseas"
@Samalik
You're not wrong, but the psychology is largely the same. Even without a hard limit, you know the odds. So if you go into a game that costs $1 where your chance of getting the SSR is 1:100 and think "This SSR will cost me $100 68% of the time, more then that but less then $200 27% of the time and over $300 0.03% of the time" and are fine with that ... you're all good.
The same way if you go into one with a hard cap thinking "This will cost me (hard cap)"
The problem is that most people don't. Most people go in thinking they are special and math doesn't apply to them so they will get it long before that. So they get mad when math does, in fact, apply. Or, maybe they just don't understand probably at even a basic level.
I think we're both basically saying the same thing, there is nothing wrong with the mechanic, you just have to go in with the right mindset and act responsibility.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Reduces Its Stake In Nintendo
@Mr_Aks
I don't think not wanting to support people who will use the money to assassinate their enemies and murder 10s of 1000s of innocent people is a political statement. I think that's the base expectation of a human being.
And while I would never call for or support something impractical like boycotting a company because one of their majority stakeholders is "bad", I do think that suggesting we ignore this completely IS a political statement, as it's a statement of support for the political ideology of tyranny.
"Don't murder people" and "Don't care that people are murdering people" are not two opposing political ideologies. One is a statement about the bare minimum expected of a human being, the other is a justification of how ideology can excesses people from that expectation. Only that second one is "political".
So I would actually argue that it's only the people saying that we shouldn't care or talk about the government that is murdering people who are making the argument about politics or "getting political". The people suggesting with SHOULDN'T ignore that are just ... decent humans, doing the bare minimum expected of humans.
Re: Sonic Rumble Mobile Game Won't Use Gacha As "Such Mechanics Tend To Be Shunned Overseas"
@AstroTheGamosian
I mean that's the core social divide he's talking about when he say that they don't go over well in the West.
On the buyer side In Japan, and most of SEA, you spend 300 yen on a gacha and your mindset is "I'll get what I get and like it". You don't spend the money unless you are okay with the worst prize, because you understand how math works and how that's what you are likely going to get. Anything above that is a bonus.
On the seller side, most of the time games use limited edition or exclusive items so they have no real "value" outside the game, but when the game includes prizes with objective costs, like gacha games at liquor stores, the price of the draw is generally the same as (or even less then) the prize of the worst prize. It's a marketing ploy to sell more, not improve profit.
Move over to the West, and the mindset is "I won the birth lottery and deserve everything" coupled with a healthy dose of being told every single day that if you don't have all the best material goods you are a worthless sub human monster that has no right to exist, and it doesn't really land as well. People play them not just because they want the SSR, but because they EXPECT it, because math doesn't apply to the main character in a story. So when they don't get it they get really really angry.
On the seller side, profit is king and your customers can die in a ditch for all you care. Pulls are like 20 times the price of the lowest cost item and it's only if you get a top tier prize that you get anything close to a good deal. This is true in games with a NA distributor, as NA publishers ALWAYS charge way, way more for each pull then even the same game where the publisher is native to SEA.
So it's like ... they would hate them even if it was the same, but they are not the same, they are worse.
Not surprising they don't go over well.
Re: Sonic Rumble Mobile Game Won't Use Gacha As "Such Mechanics Tend To Be Shunned Overseas"
The interview continued:
"So rather then use the Japanese model that relays on mechanics like this, you're just going to release a Utopian game where everything is free and we all get a pony!??"
-"What? No, obviously not. We're just going to follow the ***** American model were you get bombarded by ads and everything is behind a pay gate"
"Oh. Yeah, I guess I should have seen that coming. Could you maybe give me a few more details on the monetization you will be using?".
-"It will take me 7 hours to answer that question. Would you like me to answer it now for $4.99?"
" ... "
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@Milk_
Thank you for sharing your copyright fan fiction with me! Honestly, I think it's great.
I'll just cut and paste the actual law, which I repeat, Daly admits he broke.
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
(1) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
The law is deliberately written so how you break the lock or what the lock is doesn't matter. If someone includes any protection on their device that controls a users access to that device, circumventing it in any way is illegal. If I put out a device with a indented button that can't easily be pushed that gives you root access, but in the EULA says "You're not allowed to push that button", then pushing it is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. In fact it's probably illegal to push it even without an EULA, as long as it's clear that pushing it gives you access to protected features and requires deliberate effort. The indent is a "lock". The thing you used to push it is a device that circumvented the lock.
It is pretty ridiculous, in fact. Many legal scholars call it the single most far reaching and broadly defined statute that has ever existed. But it's also the law, and has survived no less then 200 legal challenges.
You're free to go on believing whatever you want. I can't stop you. I'm just here to help inform the opinions of people who want to base that opinion on facts and evidence. You're clearly not interested in that, so I have nothing to offer you. Please feel free to pass my comments by in the future.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@Nitwit13
I mean, it's possible that's a regional variation where you are from or within a given subcultural group. Language is generally very morphic.
I'm hardly an expert on Black youth culture, but the DRS song "Gangsta Lean" references pouring one out for dead "homies" as an act of respect, and in America the custom is so popular in "rap" culture that it has it's own variation as "Tipping to your dead homie". So I don't think that idea that it's reserved for people in jail is universal, or even common.
But the idea of pouring out a drink in reverence, called "libation", is culturally trensendent. It has independent roots in Europe, Indo-Pacific, and Africa. Honestly, maybe the author did mean what you're saying. But It's not a great idea to use a phrase the overwhelming majority of people will take one meaning from, when you mean something different based on a variation in a small or isolated language group, unless you have reason to believe your audience is made up primarily of that group.
It's also exactly the type of thing an editor will point out, and something most public writers try really hard not to do.
And really ... even in the case you're describing it's still an act of respect.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@Milk_
The accusations are clearly listed in a document linked in the article, as well as his response. I can not stress enough that he entered "no contest" to the 1201 civil violation, admitting he has no defense against the charge. You are trying to defend someone who isn't defending themselves. You are suggesting that he wasn't doing anything illegal after he has admitted that what he was doing was illegal. He is only trying to argue down possible criminal charges by disputing details that make his actions a more serious crime.
Beyond that, everything you've said is categorically false.
I would strongly advice you to read Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes), 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001), RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (2009), and MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010), as well as the 27 cases cited in these decisions for the relevant precedent around article 1201 before making any more definitive statements.
At the very least, please read the full article and linked items before diving into the discourse.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Considering Increasing Its Stake In Nintendo
@Borderlineland @PinderSchloss
I think you have a core misunderstanding about how shares work.
Nintendo went private in 1962, which is when the majority of shares were issued. That was, effectively, the last time anyone bought shares FROM Nintendo.
The shares The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund own were bought from private share holders. Nintendo isn't involved in the exchange and can't do anything to stop it. This isn't like some deal they agreed to or anything.
That's how it works for any public company. You have zero control over who buys you shares. It's even possible to buy shares in a way that the company doesn't know who owns them, and any exchanges or sales of these shares are not tracible. Again, that's just how they work. No company can "opt out" of that system.
If you want to boycott companies that The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund owns shares in, honestly power to you!
But you can't play video games, period.
They own 40 billion of Microsoft, and while their stake in Sony is relatively small at around a billion, they own a larger stake in Sony percentage wise given how much higher Microsoft's market cap. is.
They own around 10 billion of NVidia and 4 billion of AMD, so PC gaming isn't an option.
They also own about a billion of Apple, and around 5 billion in Alphabet (Google's parent).
This doesn't includes the billions they have in holding funds which in turn invest in the tech sector.
In fact you can't really even use a computer or read this website. Awkward.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@RetroGames
Again, I would really encourage you to carefully read what I post before replying. I'm honestly trying to help you understand the issue.
Like I mention, challenging the DMCA isn't "long over due". It has been challenged several hundred times already, including several high profile challenges to section 1201 alone that made it to the supreme court.
It has been upheld and affirmed as enforceable in every single one of those challenges around 1201, as well as all but a handful of total challenges. The only successful arguments has been when research exemptions have been denied or when safe harbor was ignored in issuing a take-down notice. In these cases the law itself wasn't being challenged ... in fact it was the opposite; it's was people arguing that the right granted to them by the DMCA were being denied by a IP holder.
You can't challenge it again on any of the grounds already covered, and all the common arguments people make have already been tried and failed.
You don't have to like that, but the first step in doing anything about it is accepting the reality of the situation.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@RetroGames
If you have a strong opinion on an issue and you want to make meaningful change, you need to start by informing your opinion and having a solid understanding of context. Without that, your arguments won’t hold any weight and you’re not helping your position, and can't add to the conversation with others seeking the same change you are. In this case, for example, you should start by reading the reply from Daly.
He does not deny his criminal activity and pleads no content to the 1201 violation. He’s only denying specific claims that would lead to a more sever penalty.
You are literally defending someone who has made a binding legal statement that there is no defense for there actions and they will not challenge the claim that they violated the law.
I'm simply trying to help you inform your opinion, so you're better equipped to actively seek change regarding this issue that seems important to you. It's for your benefit, and I would encourage you to absorb this new information I'm providing you with rather then attempting to defend your pervious position.
Clearing up some other things, the process of overturning a law (judicial review) is part of the appellate process, and you need standing to appeal on the grounds that the law is unenforceable. Not only isn’t that possible with a plea of no content, but it wouldn’t be possible in this case because universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley and RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association already upheld section 1201 as enforceable under these circumstances.
You are also accountable to the laws on the date you committed the crime. There are millions of people in jail, some serving life sentences, for drug offences that are no longer criminal.
If you commit a crime before the law is changed to make what you did legal, you are still a criminal and still have to serve your sentence. A code of law isn’t about morality. It’s about obedience.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@RetroGames
You're welcome to an opinion on the law, but it doesn't CHANGE the law. HIs actions are unquestionable illegal, as they violate Section 1201 of the DMCA.
It would be like someone selling cocaine on a website. You're free to argue that they should have the right to do so. But they don't, and as such, are a criminal.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@amongtheworms
This is a for profit site. Literally every word typed by every staff member has the primary purpose of driving engagement to appear more valuable to advertisers. It's not a charity. No one is trying to inform our opinions out of the kindness of their heart.
I know people don't like to think of "news" in that light, but I've been part of the game and that's just how it's played.
Edit: Just to note, I didn't find that confrontational at all given it didn't contain any personal attacks, and I welcome you or anyone else to ask questions like that. I'm not infallible, and part of why I'm here to learn from others.
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
@gcunit
"Pouring one out" is a tradition dating back 1000s of years in several cultures where you empty a glass of wine (or other beverages in modern times) over the grave of the recently deceased. It is an act of reverence and respect.
Language is morphic and subjective, sure, but any argument of "Maybe they mean it in a non-respectful way" is easily countered by "maybe professional writers reviewed by an editor-in-chief shouldn't use language that MIGHT be seen as respect for criminals"
I mean ... it's their website and they are free to express that opinion if they want. They also have every right to use language like that on their own site to create engagement by manipulating people sympathetic to piracy to post (which is likely what is happening here). I just personally don't think it's a good look.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Considering Increasing Its Stake In Nintendo
@Not_Soos
Being a member of the LGTB community is punishable by torture and death. There are verified reports of members of the LGTB+ community who left the country and come out else where being assassinated by the state.
Speaking out in support of the LGTB+ community is punishable by death, either as blasphemy or as treason. There are, again, varied stories of extrajudicial assassinations of journalists or activists native to the country who left to promote LGTB+ rights.
In 2015 the government stated an official task force to pose as gay men on dating apps and aggressively attempt to arrange meetings which individuals seeking partners in the country. Several reports suggest they are given the choice of "outing" people they have had relationships with or facing prison, torture, or death.
Beyond that official law, citizens who take it upon themselves to murder individuals who they believe may be members of the LGTB+ community are rarely charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one.
And while I totally agree that we shouldn't fault people for not being informed if they are seeking information (we only know what we know, after all), in this case this is simply objective fact verifiable by a simple internet search and something you should probably have informed yourself of before making this comment on a gaming website..
Re: Pour One Out For The Modchip Seller Facing Nintendo In Court Alone
Why would we "pour one out" for a criminal?
I mean, there are a lot of laws I don't agree with, but I still follow them and would expect to be punished if I didn't. Not only is what happened here a clear violation of civil and possibility criminal law, but Nintendo offered him a way to end litigation, which he agreed to .. and then broke.
I don't think we should sympathize with people who willingly and blatantly break not only laws, but their own personal commitments. It seems odd that the headline seems to suggest we should.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Considering Increasing Its Stake In Nintendo
@Not_Soos
You've already been corrected about a dozen times, so I just wanted to add an important fact that seems to be overlooked in a lot of the replies.
Mohammed bin Salman is an absolute despot. There is no separation between him and the state. Every aspect of life, every law and every policy is the way it is because he made it so. There is no system of opposition. There are no checks and balances. There is no "other voice". If he was a chill guy, he could simply wave his hand and remove every oppressive law, grant protections to any and all minority groups, and as a bonus use around 3% of his net worth to end poverty in not only his country, but every surrounding nation.
It's important to look at things in context. This isn't a like a president or prime minister who maybe wants better for their people but lacks the power to make meaningful change. This is an absolute authority with near unlimited power.
Re: Saudi Public Investment Fund Considering Increasing Its Stake In Nintendo
Shout out to @martynstuff for the great info at the top of this. This information is spot on, but I wanted to add some specific details.
Specific to Nintendo, their founding articles include a "poison pill" clause, which allows the largest stake holder to simple issue new shares if threatened with a takeover.
Specific to Japan, if a company founded in Japan is subject to a majority takeover by an entity outside of Japan, the government has the power to give control of the company back to it's original founders or a line of succession chosen in a way outlined in the founding documents (or, technically, anyone in Japan if nether of those options are viable). Everyone gets to keep their shares, but it's now effectively run as a private company, with the board of directors and all executives positions no longer voted in by shareholders. Combine this was the first point and one of the first things this new board will do is issue enough new shares to dilute the value and ensure the majority of shares return to Japan.
While not technically impossible, trying to hostilely take over a Japanese company is a really bad investment. You take on a ton of risk to enter a highly regulated market that is openly hostile to foreign investment. There are simply better ways to spend your money.
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@Elbow
Are you sure? Maybe it's just a Switch thing, because their entire library is literally on sale RIGHT NOW on steam. Ryza 2 is 60% off and 3 is 40% off. Warriors All Stars is 75% off.
I would say they have a sale like this every 3 months or so on PC, as well as discounting select games for all steam sales. They have a sale like this twice a year on PlayStation as well.
I own basically every title on PlayStation or PC, but the only one I did get on Switch ... I got because it was on sale.
<shrug>
Could it be a region thing? Maybe you need to make some accounts in other areas and look for sales there.
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@nitrolink
Math can help you out!
Ryza 3 moved around 400,000 units before it's first discount, so just using that number and ignoring later sales, the way to make it profitable is to make the game for less then $24 million.
I think big budget games cause us to lose perspective. The early Atelier games were made on budgets in the $2 to $5 million range, meaning they were extremely profitable with only 100,000 or so unit sales. And given only 7% of the series sales are from NA, they are more popular then most people think.
It's also Japan. It's not like the US where a game is considered a failure unless it makes the CEO a billion dollars in excuses capital. Games are successful at zero, because just making your budget back means everyone, including the developers, artists and executives gets paid because labor costs are part of your budget.
They are also merchandised to all heck. There are two Anime series and a dozen mangas. Heck, the games might be profitable off body pillows alone!
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@MirrorFate2
It had 3 million downloads a year ago, at least 1 million more this year, meaning more people "touched" it then any other game in the franchise by at least a factor of 5. Heck, the entire Ryza SERIES has only seen 2 million units sold.
I totally get if this isn't your thing. I personally think it's totally worth free, and that's hardly a ringing endorsement. But it's HUGE. It was responsible for like 30% of KOEI's revenue at a point. And while it's the first to get localized in English, it's the 3rd Mobile game and the other two were huge hits as well. So a sequel is not surprising at all.
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@Minako-Meleph
I'm not offended, just want to make sure people have an accurate idea of what the game is like. I also totally respect other's opinions, which is why my post affirmed your opinion and only focused on the factually inaccurate portrayal of the game as a black sheep in the series.
I always try to make sure people can inform their opinions based on evidence. Like the "gacha" aspect. If you've played since the Japanize release, you've gotten around 900 free pulls, plus 10 characters for free and the choice of two others. That, mathematically, means you should have around 80% of all the charterers. I don't know anyone playing Hell Divers, WoW or Destiny 2 for a year that has 80% of the loot!
Random drops and not getting all the "rare" items is a thing in almost all video games. But it often is only a BAD thing in mobile games, and that seems weird to me. So I like to take a moment to put that in perspective when people bring it up.
Where in Canada are you? I'm in Canada almost any time I'm not in Japan. Generally in or around the GTA, so luckily I don't have the internet problem. I mean it still kinda sucks paying 10 times as much for half the speed you get in rural Wakayama but hey, whatcha gonna do?
Re: Californian Law Dictates Storefronts Be Honest About Digital Game Ownership
@IceEarthGuard
Around 10,000 CD keys for Far Cry 2 were deactivated on PC. No reason was given other then to say it was intentional, it was never fixed. If you own one of the CDs with that key, you can't install your physical disk.
Early physical copies of Driver: San Francisco are not playable due to them falling DRM checks (on PC) or giving a cryptic error message (on console). Digital copies and some later re-released physical copies still work. While they didn't give full details, Ubisoft said it was due to a licensing issue with the early releases.
That's the 2 I was thinking of. There are other legacy DOS and Windows games where the online verification or DRM server is no longer online, making physical disks unplayable, but I don't remember any particulars.
Other examples that are a little different include Wipe Out: Pure and Tenchu: Stealth Assassins, which were unintentionally made unplayable by a PSP update. Physical copies no longer work, although a later update allowed people with a physical copy to download a working digital update. Importantly, they were not legally required to do so, and for a while it looked like they weren't going to.
Physical copies of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas won't play because of music license issues, although you can download an updated digital copy if you own one. The digital copy is incompatible with any of your previous saves from the physical game, however. That went over GREAT.
Guitar Hero Live sorta counts too. While playable, almost half the songs on the physical disc can't be used any more.
Re: Californian Law Dictates Storefronts Be Honest About Digital Game Ownership
@IceEarthGuard
Yes, that is what usually happens.
There have only been 2 or 3 games I know of where the physical game was made unplayable. But that's still a non-zero number.
Even if it wasn't, the option is there. That's all I'm trying to point out. Having a physical copy doesn't make you "safe". The license owner can still revoke your right to play the game at any time for any reason, and force the platform owner to make it unplayable even in a physical format.
The only way to be "safe" would be meaningful laws that changed software ownership in general, not token, meaningless laws that target digital games because that's a buzzword.
Re: Californian Law Dictates Storefronts Be Honest About Digital Game Ownership
@IceEarthGuard
There is nothing at all wrong with that argument, but it's important to note it comes with a cavoite. Legally, their is nothing stopping the game's developer, publisher, or the platform owner from pushing an update that makes the game's physical copies unplayable on your device. This has happened to a number of games in the past, generally around licensed music expiring.
Sure, you can either hack your console or role-back to a firmware that doesn't lock you out, but doing either breaks the TOS and mean you are technically doing something illegal. And if you're willing to do something illegal to play a game .. well, the whole conversation is moot isn't it? You have better options!
The problem isn't digital games. The problem is how software ownership as a whole is handled.
Re: Californian Law Dictates Storefronts Be Honest About Digital Game Ownership
@Bigmanfan
Just to put some numbers behind that ...
Based on reports from the numerous industry groups, around 98% of all digital games are playable today, with the 2% mostly being made up of live service games where you can't play physical copies either.
By contrast, factoring in the natural decay of CDs/DVDs, lost or stolen copies, and damage due to accident or natural disaster, only around 80% of physical games purchased since 2003 (the year Steam came out) are playable today.
So simply by the numbers, the average person with a completely digital library has access to more of their games then the average person with a completely physical library.
Re: Californian Law Dictates Storefronts Be Honest About Digital Game Ownership
I mean ... you don't own you physical games either, you are just licensing the software on whatever media it comes on. You also don't own the software running your console. Or your computer. Unless you choose to never go online for any reason, "they" can make your physical games unplayable at any time with OS updates (and have done this before, mostly around music license issues) , or even brick your console to force you to buy a new one.
This is a brilliant move by pro-business groups to put forth a law that completely ignores the actual problem; that all software is licensed, while attacking the buzz word that is "DIGITAL GAMES" to ensure the masses blindly support it and stop asking for real, meaningful change.
Governing angry people is so easy.
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@Anti-Matter
As a percentage, the number of Japanese developers that offer either hetero focused masculine eye candy or full on homoerotic experiences is significantly higher then Western developers.
Most Yakuza games put Zak Snyder's "300" to shame when it comes to gratuitous oiled up shirtless bodies, you can rock out as Lanz, Zeke or Reyn in Xenoblades complete with swimsuit goodness (or just keep replying the section where Vandham is in your party for maximum hunkness), Danti from DMC is ripped and allergic to undershirts, Nier Gestalt spends the whole game shirtless rocking a 6-pac, Robot Tactic X if you want some FTP buffness ... that's just off the top of my head. Not to mention any historic epic dealing with the 3 kingdoms period has more buff dudes in it then a issue of "Flex" magazine.
Heck, even in the Atelier series you have Lent and Sterk, both playable in multiple games.
You sure your problem isn't with the abundance of female PCs, rather then the lack of males?
Re: Another New Atelier RPG Is Heading To Switch Next Year
@Minako-Meleph
I'll never get the hate for mobile games. And while you're obviously free to dislike them or not play them, the overwhelming majority of "Atelier fans" absolutely loved all 3 of the mobile games. Resleriana in particular is well loved given it has one of the best stories in modern games, features the original Japanese voice cast for almost every character in the series, and does a really great job of mixing the "seriousness" of the modem games with the whimsy of the older ones with the off kilter seasonal events. Probably why it was successful enough to warrant KOEI buying it fully from the publisher, a manga, and a spin-off.
It's also got a 4.2 on Google and a 4.5 on Apple.
So hate mobile games all you want. Make comments about how upset you are about the exitance of a free experience that (like almost all Japanese FTP games) features no ads, never directs you to buy anything as part of normal play, and has no pay-gated content all you want!
But maybe stop short of suggesting it's a universal disliked affront to the series that requires a "redemption" arc or an apology. That part is simply not true. It's popular and well liked, and is bringing even more fans to the series, allowing for bigger budgets for the core games.
Re: Analyst Is Certain Nintendo Will Win Its Lawsuit Against Palworld Developer
@Reztobi
Palworld could be a 1:1 copy for Pokémon, in every conceivable way, and not violate patent law. Even in the case where you just made the same game and changed nothing, that's a Trademark violation. As such, I tagged most people trying to focus the conversation on if Pocketpairs "stole ideals" from Pokémon. That's irrelevant. You can steal all the ideas!
Sadly I'm pretty sure when we learn of the exact patent at the center of the case, the media will simplify it and call it a "Patent on (gameplay element)" when it really is a patent on the back-end computer systems supporting it and the suit isn't about stealing an idea, but stealing actual code. And the cycle will continue!
Nintendo has a valid suit, it's just not about how similar the games are. It's about violating Nintendo's patents on technical computer logic or code. Since you had a strong opinion but a core misunderstanding of how patents work, I figured you would appreciate someone helping you inform your opinion.
Re: Analyst Is Certain Nintendo Will Win Its Lawsuit Against Palworld Developer
@Dr_Lugae @anoyonmus
The patents deal with computer systems that support the mechanics and how they are implemented in code. Patents are 100s of pages long and not meant to be understood by you or me. Namco, for example, doesn't have the patent on "games on loading screens". They have a patent on a very specific type of multitasking logic, and it would be extremely difficult to code a game on a loading screen without violating it.
Edit: Just to make it even more clear, I actually have a friend who has patented "A system to combine ingredients and subject them to heat to create an edible product". Sadly, he doesn't get royalties every time someone cooks a meal. The patent covers a very specific factory layout and the machines that support it.
Re: Analyst Is Certain Nintendo Will Win Its Lawsuit Against Palworld Developer
@Dr_Lugae @axelhander
No one can patent a game mechanic. Game mechanics, gameplay rules, and game systems are defined as "“abstract ideas” and are not eligible for patents in part or in full. This has been a firmly established doctrine for 150 years, called "idea vs. expression".
You could release a game that is identical to Pokémon in every gameplay aspect. While you would be required to change design elements (like the names and number of types) to make your game distinct, that is covered by Trademark, not Patent law. Pathfinder did this to D&D 3rd edition. It's fine. It's 100% allowed.
You also can not file a patent for an existing work or "steal" a patent like that. This is such a common misconception that the Marvel show "She-Hulk" actually built an episode around how wrong yet often misquoted the idea is. If you can prove that an idea was commonly implemented before the patent was filed or that the patent is derivative of an existing system, then the patent is invalid. The only rub is that you might not be able to file for a patent either for the same reason even if you were the original designer.
Re: Analyst Is Certain Nintendo Will Win Its Lawsuit Against Palworld Developer
@axelhander @Lony85 @Mgalens @sanderev @Agamembar @sanderev @EarthboundBenjy @UltimateOtaku91 @Reztobi @BenAV @The-Chosen-one @yohn777
Hello everyone! I thought this would be easier than making a bunch of comments. I wanted to clear up some core misconceptions about patents. I will not editorialize or make any comments about the case itself.
If you have strong opinions about if the laws should or shouldn’t be the way they are, that’s great. I do too, and under different conditions I would love to hear your opinions and talk about them. But please don’t reply to this post with those opinions, because with this post I'm not looking to argue options, I’m only looking to inform them. Thank you!
You absolutely can patent a character design, or even an overall astatic. It’s called a design patent. Samsung had to pay $539 million to Apple because of a design patent for rounded corners. Nintendo has a ton of design patents dealing with console and controller design, as well as amiibos.
Design patents are likely irrelevant here, because in Japan they are called “design registrations” and enforcement would cite “registration infringement”, not patent infringement.
The big one! You can not, in whole or in part, patent game machines, rule systems, or anything related to how a game is played. They are defined legally as “abstract ideas”, which are not eligible for patents. Any and all similarities between Palword in Pokémon in the way they play, their rules, or their core concepts are not protected by patent law, regardless of how similar they are, even if they are exactly the same. This legal doctrine is called "Idea vs. expression", and in almost all cases is covered by Trademark, not patent law.
Nintendo has attempted to patent the Pokémon battle system and the Pokémon card game’s core mechanics and rules. Both were denied as abstract ideas not eligible for patents.
Nintendo has several narrowly defined patents that cover very specific storage techniques, data compression, transmission methods, server logic, and other type of game code, and some specifically deal with details shared between Pokémon and Pals. They jointly hold these patients with The Pokémon Company, and seeing this is a joint filing, they are the most likely focus of the suit.
Example: Both Pokémon and Pal’s have IVs. That game system and anything related to it is not eligible for a patent. However, Nintendo does have a patent that covers very specific ways in which IVs are stored and transmitted at a code level. If Palworld uses those exact same techniques, they might be violating that patent.
I really hope this was valuable to you, and I hope you allow it to inform your opinion moving forward.
Re: Analyst Is Certain Nintendo Will Win Its Lawsuit Against Palworld Developer
Given we don't even know what patent is at the center of lawsuit, this might as well be a fortune teller reading tea leaves.
As someone who always suggests people should listen to experts, I find few acts more deplorable then when someone knowingly uses the genetic fallacy to suggest their expertise in one area means they are somehow more qualified and we should listen to them in a unrelated area.
Being a "game analyst" doesn't mean you should be encouraging people to defer to you as an expert in a patent case. And even if you are a patent lawyer, you shouldn't encourage people to defer to you as an expert in fortune telling.
Not to mention this guys actual comments are just pure editorializing and offer no insight or clarification of the actual issue.
But I guess "Some random dude with no more expertise then any random commenter said something based on zero information" isn't a great headline.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@FirstEmperor
The plot thickens! I don't have anyone blocked. I bet the system blocks post from people blocking you, and that's the 2 I'm not seeing. Although in that case, 2 out of 111 people blocking my walls of text seems low ...
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@N64-ROX
As I explain elsewhere (and no shade on you for not wading though 300+ posts looking for my, albeit adorable, portrait), that's not the patent. If this is even the patent being challenged, which we don't know at this time, the patent application is 280 pages long, and the patent itself contains additional information you need to request.
It's language is designed to let developers know if they should take a closer look at the patent. A patent for "a way of combining ingredients and then subjecting them to heat to create an edible product" isn't a patent on the concept of cooking. It's going to be a patent for a specific, highly proprietary method involving specialized equipment because that's all you CAN patent. But you need to read all 280 pages, request the diagrams, and possibly file discovery for trade secrets if you want to know the full details.
That's because the patent database is not a tool intended for people to use to get angry at Nintendo by copying a paragraph from a 140,000 word document. It's intended to be used by patent lawyers with half a decade of education in patent law, spending 100s of hours deciding if their client's product might violate someone's patent.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@FirstEmperor
It's the one where I spew Marxist propaganda, as I'm prone to do occasionally.
I tagged you in it, let me know if that works. Thanks for the heads up about how posts are numbered, I didn't consider that.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@stache13
It's interesting isn't it? This issue got a lot of buzz a while back with the release of "Child of Light", which clamed to be an "indie game" despite being developed in-house at Ubisoft Montreal. The games director argued that because his conditions for making the game included Ubisoft allowing him complete independence and them having no say at all in the finial product, he was part of an independent studio. It didn't matter that the funds came from an established developer and publisher or who owned the building he was working in.
He even made the argument that had he got the funds on Kickstarter (which was the style at the time!) he would be LESS independent, because he would be beholden to the promises he made to backers and couldn't make drastic changes if he felt they were necessary.
It's an interesting argument, and at the end of the day it's really up to you how you define the word for yourself.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@RygelXVIII
So we've gone full circle. You commented on a post that suggested many people are posting based on emotional responses without understanding of the issue, and we conclude with you declaring you don't care if you understand the issue because you're commenting based on your emotional response.
That's your right. I certainly can't stop you from doing that. But the only reason I post is to help people inform their opinions, and if you're not interested in doing that, they have no value to you. Maybe skip them in the future?
Although one quick last note, if you read post 109 you'll see that hating corporations and having an informed opinion are not mutually exclusive. It just helps you make stronger arguments.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@RygelXVIII
I would suggest that If you hit pause and spent some time trying to understand the patent system, you would realize that gaming systems and not eligible for patents in any forms, and your viewpoint is based on an emotional response to a misunderstanding of how software patents work.
I would also suggest that if you hit pause you might question if the 91 words you have quoted from a 280 page, 140,000 word technical patent application that doesn't include the 26 pages of accompanying diagrams it references does in fact represents a comprehensive understanding of what the patent covers.
While hitting pause to ask where the diagrams are, you might come across the fact that the doctrine of "Balance of Discloser" means that software patents applications do not generally include details required to fully understand their scope and that even as an expert with time to study the patent in full, you would need to subpoena discovery to fully understand it.
That might lead you to read about how software patents applications are general because they are designed to let developers know if the system they are working on might be covered. For example Microsoft owns several patents that say they cover "organizing data based on it's components", but that doesn't mean that Microsoft has patented the concept of data organization. Instead, is to let someone writing a database program know they might want to request the full text of this patent to learn what exact and narrowly defined techniques are covered.
While paused, you might consider the fact that judges in software patent cases generally spend MONTHS consulting with dozens of experts, and question if less then a day by one person who has incomplete access to the patent is adequate to form a solid understanding or draw conclusions.
You finally might question if dozens of excited posts that use definitive language and make direct accusations are appropriate when you consider the above information. You might even ask yourself if this is a conversation where you should be predominantly listening, rather then one where you should be predominantly talking.
There were 20 minutes between my comment and yours. Perhaps consider hitting pause for a bit longer. I think it's great your passionate! But temper that with understanding. Spend 100 minutes reading for every 1 minute you spend talking.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@VoidofLight @FirstEmperor
I didn't want to editorialize in my original comment, but that's more or less my personal opinion. While Nintendo, on a relative scale with other multinationals, actually has a pretty good record of treating employees and customers fairly, if push came to shove they, just like Poketpair and every other corporation, would happily murder your family and devoir their souls if they could turn a profit from that.
My own "strong emotional response" I have to hit pause on comes from seeing the Proletariat defending their Bourgeoisie oppressors. I do my best to address misconceptions and try and encourage informed decision making, but that just reminds me that I'll never be able to cut though the lifetime of propaganda and gaslighting we've all been subject to.
I'm involved in discourse that revolves around the premises that one of these companies is "in the right", and I wish I could instead argue that premise altogether. The very laws at play here were written by the insanely wealthy to prevent the common man from encroaching on their generational wealth. The only slight positive here is that Nintendo is using the tools generally reserved to subjugate the masses to instead attack another soulless corporation.
(sigh)
Unite, chains, and all that.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@anoyonmus
Thank you for the shout out. As always, I really appreciate it.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@RygelXVIII
Thank you for pointing out I got their name wrong! I went back and corrected it.
"Indie" is mostly a subjective term, but it would be difficult to argue that Pocketpair, in jointly owning a subsidiary with a $109 billion company as well as raising much of the capital for their games though private investment, is "independent". Both Sony and the investors will have some involvement in decision making, and the license agreement in Sony includes bilateral commitments. Poketpair can not independently make decisions about this IP.
I think the idea that you stop being "independent" when you enter a multimillion dollar joint venture with one of the largest corporations in the world is not contraveral.
Concerned Ape is a huge outlier. And while he developed that game alone, he can no longer claim to be an independent developer given he has several licensing agreements with companies like Fangamer which will include bilateral commitments. While still just one guy, he is beholden to external influence to at least some degree and his interests and use of the IP extend outside gaming. He is no longer working as an independent developer, but instead as the sole proprietor of a conglomerate.
No judgement, but I think the thing I would have rather you focused on in my post was the idea of hitting pause. I think it might do you some good in this case,
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@stache13
Not to call you out, but just because visualizing money and large numbers is generally very difficult, I wanted to make a comment.
The average experienced software engineer in the US makes around $150,000, and the average creative lead with any experience makes around $250,000. You can get a “Game Programmer” right out of university for maybe $75,000, but you need experienced or extremely talented people if you want to make something with a small team.
The overhead on the physical studio, assuming 2 to 10 people, would be around $60,000 a year. Startup and equipment costs are somewhere around $50,000, with an additional $10,000 per employee.
A project with a budget of “millions of dollars” could be extremely unambitious. You would be hard pressed to take a game from start up to release for under a million dollars even with a team as small as 4 people. “Cuphead”, “Hades” and “Eastward” had budgets around $5 million. “Hollow Knight” was $6 million. “Starbound” cost $10-$12 million. Even “Stardew Valley” cost around $1.5 million, and that’s literally one guy. Undertail was also one person and cost around $500,000, as an example of how extremely barebones your production needs to be to pull off a game with a low budget.
Game development is EXPENSIVE. We shouldn’t judge a studio as “indie” or not based on the amount of capital they have, but on their relationship with outside investors, publishers, and other stakeholders. Jointly owning a subsidiary with a $109 billion company absolutely disqualifies Pocketpair from being “indie”.
Palworld cost less to make then Starbound, and Chucklefish is still a relatively small studio of 18 people. What disqualifies Pocketpals from saying they are “small” is their $40-$50 million in revenue combined with the fact that most of that was not reinvested in the company, and instead went to expanding into other verticals. You are a small studio if you can only afford a small team, not if you COULD afford to have a team of 100s, but instead decided to spend that money on other things.
Re: Palworld Developer Responds To Nintendo Lawsuit
@MsJubilee
While I apricate the shout our and the sentiment, this is wholly inaccurate.
Most people on this site are intelligent, reasonable, and complex individuals whos opinions and insights are extremely valuable. That's why I engage in discourse here!
However, many of them are making bad choices in how they process information.
"Smart" or "Reasonable" isn't a thing you are or are not. It's a choice you have to repeatedly make, and it's often a challenging and difficult one.