this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
203 points (90.8% liked)

Nintendo

18343 readers
40 users here now

A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.

Rules:

  1. No NSFW content.
  2. No hate speech or personal attacks.
  3. No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
  4. No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
  5. No console wars or PC elitism.
  6. Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
  7. All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here

Upcoming First Party Games (NA):

Game | Date


|


Super Mario Party Jamboree | Oct 17 Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025

Other Gaming Communities


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago (18 children)

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

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

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

Why would Nintendo buy something that plagiarized them? They only buy independent stuff like how they did with Super Mario Bros 2

[–] willis936@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

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

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

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)