- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it’s ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.
You must log in or register to comment.
This is why I’ll never feel sorry for Nintendo - karma is long overdue for this company. In fact, I’ll download a switch emulator right now just to spite them.
Heck yeah.
Torzu seems to be the logical successor to Yuzu.
I started using it last week. It works well so far although I have only played the new donkey Kong. Take note that Torzu has gone to the dark web, so if you want it you need to go through TOR. This is good because this makes take down near impossible.
I’m still using the latest version of Yuzu (the version shortly before the takedown). How does Torzu compare to that? And is it possible to add Torzu to Emudeck?
Torzu is a fork of Yuzu, so essentially the same thing, just being kept updated. I am not familiar with emudeck but I am sure it will be compatible. I know files like saves etc from Yuzu work with Torzu.
Nice, please share the link with everyone for ultimate spite (and cos I deleted yuzu once by mistake)
/s
Hum.
points at sidebar
I was joking, I promise, look I added a /s 😇
Yeah, right… /s
😂
I have a private git copy of every recent open-source Switch emulator. I don’t have a use for them, for now at least, but at least their work won’t be lost.
Carry on, Flamekeeper!
This is bullshit. Warner Brothers and Nintendo need to lose, hard.
Also, why the hell does Nintendo think they were first when it comes to the concept? Animals and gliding have been a thing for a long time.
You see, the patent system is based on a “first to file the paperwork” basis, thereby enabling literal legalized theft. Neoliberalism at work, precisely as designed.
the patent system is based on a “first to file the paperwork” basis
then blame the patent office, because it shouldn’t be so
I definitely blame the patent office.
But also, patents should not exist. They need to be completely abolished. Copyrights are one thing, copyrights make sense, patents are another entirely, existing solely to facilitate intellectual theft from both individual entities and the broader public.
Palworld did more for the monster-collecting genre in one early access title than Pokémon has in the last decade of AAA titles.
Why does Nintendo deserve these patents when they aren’t going to produce anything meaningful with them and simply weaponize them to squash any real threatening competition?
Pokémon is the highest grossing franchise in the world, and 2nd place isn’t even close. I think they can give a little ground to an indie developer who makes games that people are actually interested in playing. The patent bullshit is ridiculous.
Because that’s how Nintendo works. They are the Disney of gaming.
hardly call pokemon an AAA title. maybe a solid A+ even before thier enshittification during the SWSH era.
I can get the pokéball, but mounts in games are older than pokémon. That one makes no sense.
Both older and newer, yet they didn’t go after the countless games that have mounts.
and pokemon dint even had actual mounts til much later than most consoles.
Remember they amended the patent after palworld came out
This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them
Do not support these companies.
Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan
Atlus should sue Nintendo for stealing the idea of monster collecting and storing them in your PC from Megami Tensei.
Yep down with these mfers
pokemon licenses to niantac, its solely on pokemon company/nintendo.
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
Victims of Stockholm Syndrome always focus on what their abusers provide, but never what they take away.
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
This is such an extremely naive thing to say.
Do you enjoy having every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
EDIT: no arguments, just downvotes? Damn, I thought this place was supposed to be better than Reddit…
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Chinese companies famously ignore patent law and do make copies and try to flood the western market with them.
But western companies at least have a tool to fight back or limit the flood.
Most startups don’t have the time and/or money to patent their ideas and big corps do squash them/steal their ideas routinely once they become noticeable.
Ah, the usual “if the solution is not absolutely 100% perfect, let’s throw out the solution”. Come on…
If anything, startups can’t develop their ideas because some company will hold a generic patent like “clicking a button does something” (or “glide with a pet”) from 30 years ago.
Yeah, this happens all of once every billion times. Clearly the system is stupid and needs to be killed so that nobody who isn’t extremely rich can actually develop anything new without being immediately put out to pasture.
Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.
If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.
Ask yourself why.
Don’t believe me? Google is your friend.
I don’t care where the company making the claim is from, as long as it acquired the IP legally and has a valid claim for protecting it.
The way the patent system works is bad in many, many, MANY ways, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just idiotic. As it is, we at least have a semblance of rules. Without it, it’s just “whoever can reproduce and mass produce a promising product faster”. And that means: China because they already make everything.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America. Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years? Have we done anything really innovative recently? Remakes delayed games and flops.
The Nemesis system, which we just sit on and don’t do anything with.
I just wanna know which amazing video game innovations We are protecting here in America
First, I’m not talking specifically about America. Second, I’m not talking about “amazing innovations”. Copyright is also for trademarks, very characteristic gameplay mechanics, etc. For example, Playrix made “Fishdom” which was copy-paste Worms. Team17 won the case and protected their IP.
Are we talking about the failing franchises that have been milking their customers for 15 years?
Umm… No? What does that have to do with copyright or IP protection…?
Have we done anything really innovative recently?
Have you tried looking at titles from other publishers than Ubisoft, EA or Activition?
You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.
But they don’t. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.
They favour the big guy, not the little guy
That’s the US law system, not the IP system in general.
There are examples of smaller companies managing to protect their IP (Finjan vs Symantec, Unwired Planet vs. Huawei, Neo Wireless vs. Sony, etc., etc - that’s just from a quick search).
I’m not saying that the copyright system in place is perfect, but saying “copyright and patent laws need to die” is just delusional.
Patents have an expiry for a reason and the expiry date is pretty generous IMO. It’s thought as “Startup x can invent and make money off it but after it the market should take over so further improvements can be made.” Imagine if they patented CRISPR Cas9 or the first DNA sequencing method. It would limit science for the entire time of the expiry but not after.
Claiming invention patent for the pokeballs more than 20 years after the game came out is absurd. They can keep the brand, trademark and IP for their weirdly long time but innovations should become public so the market can continue innovating.
Then go back to reddit? You are daft as fuck defending this crap. Nintendo patenting game mechanics shouldn’t be a thing.
Fuck Nintendo and its supporters.
How about you come back to me when you can read?
I’m not defending Nintendo, I’m saying that “copyright and patent laws need to die” stance is naive.
You clearly can’t read. Enjoy those downvotes for being a moron.
I don’t think patents and copyright “need to die”, but they are currently both overly broad and last far too long. Copyright protection especially has no justifiable reason to be even 1/4 as long as it is.
every good, innovative US or EU product die immediately due to China/India making a 1:1 copy and flooding the markets with it?
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
Enjoy innovative products that startups create? How about not having any of that because as soon as a startup makes something, a big corp comes in with their money, steals the idea, and floods the market?
You just described the dream of most startups. The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired by a big corp so that their idea/product can continue growing, because without acquisition growth is severely limited.
If it’s a perfect 1:1 copy why does it matter? Can you explain how this isn’t just a stance rooted in xenophobia?
First of all: very often it’s literally a 1:1 copy.
Secondly: imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter, whatever. It sells well, but you don’t have the money to start a large-scale production, you’re doing OK with sales and are looking for investors, but things are fairly slow. In comes a Chinese dude, buys one auto-painter from you, brings it home, dismantles the thing, copies everything (potentially making some changes), and starts a massive-scale production in his factory. Due to the mass-production, worse materials, and lower labour costs, he sells the product at 20% the price of yours. The market is saturated with his knock-off, you’re left with zero money.
Is this xenophobia to you? Or someone stealing your product and killing your business?
The goal of the vast majority is to be acquired
Yeah, I’m not talking about them being acquired. What gave you that idea? I specifically used the words “steals their idea”.
imagine you make an innovative product. I don’t know, automatic fence painter
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters? As bad as this sort of stuff is in software world it’s soooo much worse in hardware world. The licensing fees for every single little piece of IP that go into it would nickel and dime even large businesses out of building anything like that. Sure there’s also technical difficulties with building one, but those are surmountable. However, a business model that could survive the constant threats of litigation, licensing fees and turn even a mild profit does not exist.
Is this xenophobia to you?
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
someone stealing your product and killing your business?
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner? In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Do you know why there doesn’t exist automated fencepost painters?
I’m just impressed that you managed to miss the point by so much.
Yes, because you just described what businesses throughout the Western world do to your mythical small business and projected it onto some mythical far east.
Correct. Which is precisely why copyright law was established in the first place and why companies like Facebook, Google or Amazon were able to become what they were without Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting what they did.
The copyright laws are not perfect, far from it. But they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
You do realize that is the point of IP right? To allow legalized theft in this exact manner?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
In the exact article this comment chain is discussing palworld did their due diligence to verify they weren’t violating any of Nintendo’s IP and then Nintendo modified their patent filing so that they were with the express goal of stealing their product.
Yes, like I said: the copyright laws are not perfect. But saying that it would better WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS is insanity.
Microsoft or Apple just copy-pasting
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively. Apple tried with Ping/eWorld, Safari/Spotlight but didn’t really get into the web host space. Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
they give smaller companies SOME form of defence against the corps.
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
Do you also believe that OSHA was created to control the poor employee into submission by their great corporate overlord?
That’s a rather impressive hay golem you’ve built there.
WITHOUT ANY COPYRIGHT LAWS
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws and you have yet to explain why it would be insane without changing scope or inventing fanciful scenarios.
Microsoft did copy and paste though: Yammer, Bing and Azure respectively
So, you fully and honestly believe that Microsoft has stolen Google’s and Amazon’s code? As in: you’re 100% certain that’s the case here?
Also worth mentioning the duopoly nature of those 2 specifically.
No. It’s not worth mentioning in a topic that has nothing to do with that fact…
Rather telling that all your examples are Fortune 500 companies?
It amazes me how you see a company NOW being a Fortune 500, and going “waagh, IP protection only serves the massive corpos!!!” without realising how many of those companies became Fortune 500 thanks to those protections.
It equally amazes me how you see the law being used by said companies most of the time (because, you know, they’re larger) and go “we can do without these laws” without blinking an eye, or a single neuron firing towards the thought that… these laws ALSO serve the smaller companies.
We’re not talking copyright laws, we’re talking patent laws
Mate, are you lost or something?
This is what my reply was to:
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
Do I need to put “copyright” in bold here?
Do we enjoy the premise of capitalism where businesses compete to make the best and cheapest product for the consumer?
Yes. Yes we did up until a few months ago.
A few months ago?! lol sure ok.
We are getting cheap but we are not getting anywhere close to best and it’s been that way for at least a decade.
WTF are you talking about??
Fuck Nintendo.
I don’t care about Palworld, but I do hate Nintendo. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
I don’t care about it either personally, but my wife really enjoys playing the game with friends, and I’m pissed on her behalf. Luckily, she’s told me the devs are being really good about making the changes feel good (not like a punishment).
Nintendo are rightly losing their free pass with gamers.
That is very true, but the Venn Diagram overlap between GamersTM and ‘Nintendo gamers’ is a rapidly shrinking area.
I’ve seen no evidence of this. People are clamoring for the switch 2 and talking about all they want to buy. Fuck Nintendo, but people keep giving them money so they’re going to keep doing anti-consumer shit with no sign of any government stopping them. The government isn’t going to attack one of the most beloved companies in Japan whose mascot they used at their olympics. A lot of Japanese are event against things like free, labour-of-love randomizers made for old games. People need to stop buying their shit globally if they want anything to happen.
that was the same issues with swsh all the way to arceus, people were repeatadly warned how half-assed the games were, and then complain later on the subs. they still bought it.
Where is that? Cause Switch 2 pre orders are sold out.
That has happened my whole life, I’m 44. Nintendo supposedly does low first batch numbers so the can get in the news that they sold out. Then scalpers sell the machines for $1500.
Sure but I don’t see any evidence of Nintendo’s decline. The truth is that gamers are incredibly spineless and will continue to bootlick corporate boot unless they put “something woke in the game” at which point they’ll leave a review somewhere and still clock in 300 hours if entertained enough.
Heard that before, this happens every decade or so
Why is there nothing in place to punish Ninendo for doing shit like this?
Patent law is rigged. Legal monopolies shouldn’t exist.
Legal monopolies shouldn’t exist.
I agree IP law is messed up, but that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
Having a temporary, legal monopoly on something that requires a lot of R&D and not much production cost (say, a novel or new kind of asphalt) allows the creator to make back their R&D costs before competitors come out with cheaper alternatives. Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
We need shorter durations and more scrutiny on scope. Also, patents should generally not apply to software.
that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
As an incentive structure for corporations and “people” purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there’s no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.
I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can’t afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That’s still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
Not all monopolies are created equal. We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies, meaning these are new products, not some existing necessity. IP law on its own can’t kill existing products.
An author having exclusive rights to a work doesn’t prevent other authors from making their own works. A pharmaceutical company having exclusive rights to a medication doesn’t prevent other pharmaceutical companies from making competing medications. Likewise for video games and whatnot.
The problems with Palworld have little to do with IP law as a concept but with how broad the protection of patents is. IMO, video game mechanics shouldn’t be patentable, and companies should be limited to copyright protections for their IP. But IP protection is still important as a concept so creators don’t get screwed and customers don’t get defrauded.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
Only have access to this account during work, so late reply.
We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies
It doesn’t matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
scare away companies
There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don’t have to suck a corporation’s dick to keep their productivity.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
A few ways:
- the term “R&D” can be pretty broad, so it’s unlikely to have the effect you’re thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is “R&D” whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse
- companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don’t exist
- enforcement could be selective to target companies that don’t “bend the knee” - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it’s not practical
force
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you’re making everyone pay for that R&D
R&D for many companies is taking the research done by underpaid graduate and PhD students and using that to create some sort of product or buying out the startups those students created and building from that.
We already live in a system where the majority of costs are publicly subsidized (and that’s not mentioning the myriad of direct subsidies these companies receive, for an especially egregious example look at the amount Pfizer got paid to develop the Covid vaccine) and then the result is patented and privatized.
underpaid graduate and PhD students
They usually get grants, and frequently the student will get hired to follow up on that research. A lot of the research ends up unusable to the company as well, at least on its own.
majority of costs are publicly subsidized
I think that’s a bit extreme, but I’ll give you that a lot of R&D is subsidized. The COVID example, however, is an outlier, since the funding was to accelerate ending the pandemic, which was critical for the economy as a whole.
the student will get hired to follow up on that research.
You’re right that that’s an aspect I forgot about, however If the patent system worked as you envision it then those students would own the parent which they would then lease to those companies. The actual situation is quite legally messy because it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced, (which is then leased out via partnerships, grants etc ) and when those individuals lease themselves with the promise of producing more valuable IP they have to take cautions to not infringe on their previous work.
I think that’s a bit extreme,
Not really, using Covid as an example this paper details the pre and post-epidemic funding sources that went into the discovery, testing and production of the COVID vaccine. Do you have any other examples you’d like to use to demonstrate how it’s “extreme”?
The COVID example, however, is an outlier
Yes and no, but it is well publicized and documented which is what I was trying to communicate with that specific one as an example.
it’s usually the universities which own the IP produced
Which is totally reasonable. The student applies for a graduate program to get a degree, not get rich off a patent. Theoretically, any patent royalties retained by the university would go toward funding university activities. I don’t know how much this happens in practice though.
That said, there should be limits here. If a patent makes over a certain amount, the rest should go to the student.
it is well publicized and documented
Right, because it’s an outlier.
If you go to the patent office and look at recent patents, I doubt a significant number are the result of government funding. Most patents are mundane and created as part of private work to prevent competitors from profiting from their work. My company holds a ton of patents, and I highly doubt the government has any involvement in funding them.
Did Nintendo get government funding for its patents? I doubt it.
I need to start patenting random game mechanics, apparently.
Might be cool to have AI come up with a bunch of mechanics to patent.
Here’s hoping Pokemon and Nintendo see disappointing sales. Everytime someone brings up Pokemon, bring up Palworld and how massive of a dick the Pokemon Company/Nintendo was. When people talk about the Switch 2, they bring up all the lawsuits Nintendo brought up on fans, all the YouTubers that dealt with issues because suing people, I’d assume, is Nintendo’s main income source at this point…
Worthy cause but a slim hope. Everyone who’s been planning to continue supporting Nintendo, and who I have talked about these issues with, most of them echo the sentiments and agree that Nintendo is bad, but go on to say ‘…but in the end, my favorite franchises are exclusive to Nintendo so…’. I fear nothing can make a dent in the nostalgia abuser that is Nintendo, not like this.
I’ve had a second wind of pokemon since pogo came out, but they killed it with the sale to the Saudis. I’m not supporting Saudi blood ventures
i doubt it, 10s millions still are pokemon fans, majority are children + they also have the TRADING card game which i heard they are making bank on that too, and then the extra side games like GO, and pocket, only boosts pokemons popularity.
they dint fall in sales when they enshittified sword and shield and beyond. they rightfully sued some research instituition, because naming some of thier stuff after oncogene is bad press.
I wonder how hard it would be for an “unofficial” patch to “somehow” be released that restores the previous functionality
deleted by creator
