Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

gamerant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#81

Post by gamedever »

jwagenet wrote: post #75
gamedever wrote: post #17

Blame the government. You shouldn't be allowed to patent game mechanics IMO. Nitnendo has (had) a patent on ghost cars (showing a ghost of your former performance in Mario Kart) Sega has (had) a patent on zooming between camera positions from Virtua Racing 1 Wizards of the Coast has a patent on card games similar to Magic the Gathering. I don't know what their actual patent is but I do know lots of companies paid the…

How is this different than patenting physical designs in practice? If someone develops a novel game mechanic there isn’t really a reason they shouldn’t be able to exclusively capitalize on it if someone else can patent something “irl”. If Nintendo thought ghost cars offer a compelling advantage over other racers, that seems valid to me. The patent length is a separate issue altogether.

novel is holding a ton of weight there. zooming a camera to different positions existed long before vitrua racing.

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#82

Post by portaouflop »

Hamuko wrote: post #63
portaouflop wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can play switch 1 games on 2 so even if that might happen it won’t impact the success of switch 2

You know what you can also play Switch 1 games on? The Switch 1 that you already own.

You assume too much, last console I bought was PS 2 - I might get the next switch though.

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#84

Post by TeaBrain »

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #78
TeaBrain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt this was just filed as a side project of some developers. They probably have patent lawyers on staff or on retainer whom someone in the organization requested to file this. Especially since this seems related to the legal action they started against Palworld in 2024.

The sentence as written was “this is a side activity of a few employees”. It appears to have been misread - and then interpreted as - “this is a side project of a few developers”. The activity vs. project distinction is about whether it’s a companywide priority or just the job of a few folks. And using the word employees instead of developers allows it to be an entirely independent activity from developers. My read o…

No, I didn't misread it. I originally thought about making it more general, in reference to "employees", but who other than developers are going to write the wording of a software patent as a side project? Certainly not accountants or HR. However, I was a little kind, as the suggestion that it was possibly a side project is completely absurd. I was a little too passive in my response in this respect, as there is zero chance that patent lawyers, either on staff or on retainer, were not explicitly asked to file the patent.

>the full time job of a very small number of people whose mandate was probably one utterance from the CEO

If this were the case it would be a team of patent lawyers as I said. However, the wording of their comment didn't imply this in saying "a side activity of a few employees", as the implication of the phrasing is that employees are doing it on the side, not that there is a side activity of the company that happens to have employees. In any case, Nintendo is notoriously litigious. Their legal team is likely sizable, and nothing they take action on would just be considered a side activity.

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#85

Post by Vilian »

markus_zhang wrote: post #68
portaouflop wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t solve systemic issues on an individual level — the whole system needs an overhaul, not much consumers can do here.

No I'm not trying to solve a systemic issue. To solve the systemic issue...we probably need a world revolution that won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Isn't that just US system being broken as always, and other countries have reasonable copyright laws, so it's not a "world revolution"

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#86

Post by Hamuko »

portaouflop wrote: post #82
Hamuko wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what you can also play Switch 1 games on? The Switch 1 that you already own.

You assume too much, last console I bought was PS 2 - I might get the next switch though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#87

Post by skerit »

Zren wrote: post #38
MiddleEndian wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Looks like this patent is for capturing a virtual creature with a throwable item. Pokemon came out 29 years ago. Even if you recognize this patent it should be expired rather than slightly tweaked and then extended. Thanks for the reminder to buy Palworld, Nintendo!

The patent mentions the ability to aim the pokeball which wasn't in the first 3 Gameboy games. Does modern Pokémon start battles by throwing a pokeball to release a monster to begin fighting?

> Does modern Pokémon start battles by throwing a pokeball to release a monster to begin fighting?

In "Let's Go, Pikachu!" and "Let's Go, Eevee!" this was the only way you could catch Pokémon. Just like the way it is in Pokémon Go. (Or was, haven't played in years)

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#88

Post by 29athrowaway »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #29
29athrowaway wrote: post #27

Pokemon is absurdly overpriced. Like $70 on Nintendo Switch. And the gameplay is literally the same as Gameboy games from decades ago, with better graphics (that could be rendered on a Gamecube). No voice acting for dialogues, a tiny sound track, most content is text... no way to explain $70. If people want to buy something else then good.

This doesn’t check out. Pokémon Red was $30 in 1996 which is $62 in today’s dollars. If you just mean there are other games you’d rather spend $70 on, well, that’s not much of a proposition.

The gameplay with respect to 1996 didn't evolve much. Only the graphics.

Re: Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

#89

Post by Ferret7446 »

talldayo wrote: post #61
atum47 wrote: post #36

Nintendo is a shitty company. They made some good games 30 years ago and that's it. All the shitty stuff they are pulling today makes me wish they fail more and more. Even back in the day they would do shitty things to third party developers, we just didn't knew about it. Sorry if this hurts your nostalgia but it is the truth. I'll try to mention the previous shitty thing they did that was covered by the news every t…

The top comment there pretty much sums it up nicely. Attacking Nintendo is like attacking Disney or Apple - they're a lifestyle brand. There are some people who spend thousands of dollars annually on their products and might feel irrationally invested in the business. Others might have insecurities or extreme dysfunctions they perceive to be "solved" by the brand. People are deeply entrenched in the concept of these…

I dislike Nintendo but I have to defend them a little.

Nintendo makes toys. They started as a toy company and they still are a toy company; they make video game "toys", it's why their consoles are underpowered, it's why they have a huge first party dominance, and it's why they never "port" their games to other consoles. You buy their "toys and toy accessories". You aren't buying "games that I wish I could play on PC/with mods/etc".

A lot of their shitty practices/"decline" is because gamers expect them to be a video game company, but they're not; they're a toy company. And to be fair, they still consistently make great "toys" (games that are great for kids or more casual players, even though they are flawed and lacking for game enthusiasts).

Comparing them to Disney is particularly apt, wrt lifestyle brand. They're both targeted toward kids and families, although there are a minority of adults that seem to have latched on particularly hard (Freud would have a field day).

Post reply on HN