Looks like this patent is for capturing a virtual creature with a throwable item. The whole concept is obviously comical, but for additional laughs, this is an opportunity to check out how software patents are written. To quote:
> A non-limiting example of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program of the present non-limiting example is executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus. The game program causes the computer to perform operations comprising: switching between at least a first and a second mode, based on a first operation input; and in the first mode, determining an aiming direction in a virtual space, based on a second operation input, and causing a player character to launch, in the aiming direction, an item that affects a field character disposed on a field in the virtual space, based on a third operation input, and when the item is launched at a place where the field character is disposed, giving an effect associated with the item to the field character, and in the second mode, determining the aiming direction, based on the second operation input, and causing the player character to launch, in the aiming direction, a fighting character that fights, based on the third operation input, and when the fighting character is launched at a place where the field character is disposed, causing the field character and the fighting character to start fighting against each other on the field.
>The patent mentions the ability to aim the pokeball which wasn't in the first 3 Gameboy games.
Sure but I'd say aiming is more or less the natural evolution of "$X in 3D instead of 2D." Obviously Nintendo disagrees and perhaps the patent system disagrees (depending on the outcome of whatever court cases happen), but I disagree with them.
[1]: This also carries over to Pokemon Scarlet/Violet, which is the latest mainline entry and will presumably remain the new standard going forward? Arceus was seen (and received) as more of a paid beta test for the system since the overworld was a bit empty at times
> 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)
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 them $$$$$$$$ for it to have a their own similar card game
> Blame the government. You shouldn't be allowed to patent game mechanics IMO.
Much of the current patent laws are international law regulated by the WTO. Our current agreement was signed by Clinton.
I think it needs an overhaul. Cut the strict 20 year expiration time in half at least, and implement other reforms as needed. Delegate more regulatory authority to nations and maybe more or less depending on industry or application. Patents should also require that you use it or lose it.
The patented game mechanic I am most bummed won’t be appearing in other games is Death Stranding’s desire pathing. Having other players in an open word “wear” paths into the map was extremely cool.
I missed that one. For me it is the Nemesis System from Shadow of Mordor/War. They made 2 games and haven't done anything with it since but they still patented it.
The way it's implemented is clever. Players gradually wear down challenging terrain, incentivizing you to take those easy paths. But the mechanic subtly solves a problem with open world settings, bringing order to infinite choice: you can go this way.
You also get notified when other players follow paths you've made, which feels great.
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.
So Nintendo is claiming patent infringement for a patent that was registered after Palworld was released? It seems a bit nonsensical, am I understanding it correctly?
I'm not a lawyer, but I have 20+ patents. There are some pathological situations where company A launches a product after Company B has applied for a patent, but before the patent is issued. Also, there are rules for prior art, related to the timing of when the prior art became known (through publication, release of a product, etc). It can get even more screwy when an inventor files for a patent in more than one country.
Company A might have known about the application, but was confident that it would not be issued or defensible.
Things like "obviousness" and "prior art" can be hard to judge unless you're a patent lawyer... or a judge.
> Things like "obviousness" and "prior art" can be hard to judge unless you're a patent lawyer... or a judge.
Yea, examiners will grant patents that might have no chance in court. So what tends to matter more is not whether someone has a patent, but whether it was successfully used in court.
(Patent attorney) The patents in question are continuation patents. Essentially, Nintendo filed a patent application before Palworld was released that disclosed the mechanics Nintendo is patenting now. That original application only included claims covering a subset of the mechanics described in the application. They can continue filing additional applications with new claims that cover the mechanics described entirely in the original application and get the benefit of having the priority date of the original application so long as they meet certain requirements about the timing.
Original application: I invented A, B, C, D, E, and F and want A protected; here’s some $. Follow-up application 1: I want invention B protected, here’s some more $. Follow up application 2: I want C protected, here’s some more $.
Part of the idea behind it is that you don’t have to waste money protecting parts of what you invented that don’t pan out (additional claims cost additional money beyond a certain number of claims). It’s not particularly fair, since you can watch what a competitor does (as Nintendo has done here), and essentially backdate a patent as though you had filed for it before the competitor did their thing.
It seems truly absurd what you can patent nowadays. The system seems utterly broken for its original purpose which was to encourage ingenuity and inventiveness. It now does the exact opposite.
Not really, it is just to convince them that Nintendo has a huge lawyer army awaiting their ... overzealous fans, so they can decide whether it worths to buy Nintendo games or not. If they decide to buy, sure, nothing we can do.
Also it's definitely not part of public education. Not everything happens in a public school is public education. It can stay in the form of clus or forums.
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.
The problem is very easy to solve; quit buying their products, refuse to deal with them in any way, tell them why, inform others; lather, rinse repeat.
We tend to underestimate our power, without us they're nothing.
Isn't this impossible because you can't get a patent if there is prior art? So they shouldn't be able to use a patent against a video game that came out before the patent was filed right?
The prior art restrictions are no longer in place, and the system has become first to file. The America Invents Act changed to the first to file from first to invent
This is only half true. Yes, the country switched to first-to-file, but the definition of prior art was expanded. This means it's easier to strike down a patent due to prior art now than before.
only with in the grace period. prior art previously had no such limitation. if you could prove you had the thing before the patent filer, you could void the patent. now, if you wait beyond the grace period, ooops
this seems to be overlooked and i'm not sure why. you're like the 3rd person
There are many interesting points in this video for me but most saliently:
-Nintendo is not as litigious as it could be given how many possible infringements it could potentially persue
-It is well aware that it loses fan goodwill whenever it shuts down some innocent fangame, but the way that patent and copyright law is written it is apperently a significant risk diluting their brand if they don't take actions to protect it, so it is a balancing act they have to calculate
-Sony's backing of Palworld is the particularly alarming part for Nintendo that is likely spurring them into action in this case
This isn't a defense of Nintendo, but I think it's interesting to see some deeper systematic reasons for why they do what they do
This makes me happy that I've moved my entire family over to Steam Deck from Switch. I like some of what Nintendo does, but their stand on intellectual property is unconscionable.
The difference is that Nintendo has been a market leader since the 80s and has been suing for patents and copyright infringement ever since - so their demise is far from guaranteed and they are just as relevant as they were when I was in primary school
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.
This is a sign of the beginning of the end for them. When you’re rotten to the core you do things like this instead of actually innovating and creating new great products. It doesn’t end well long term.
No, not even close. Nintendo is not a VC funded startup fighting for their survival. The Nintendo switch 2 is right around the corner and looks like it is going to sell extremely well, after the massive success of the switch 1
Patents are not that expensive to file. They are not diverting any meaningful amount of cash flow to this. This is a side activity of a few employees
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 of what OP said is that this is the full time job of a very small number of people whose mandate was probably one utterance from the CEO. Executing on that is mostly common sense, thus requiring very little mindshare from anyone senior - thus, a side activity for the company as a whole.
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.
One would hope they learned from the mistakes of the Wii U - and based on their first release about it, and supporting backwards compatibility, it seems they have.
The switch 2, as shown so far is much closer to the original switch’s design ethos than the Wii U was to the original Wii. In a clear marketing mishandling, many people didn’t even know the Wii U was something separate from the Wii. A lot of people thought I was an accessory
The success of the Switch 1 might be a reason why the Switch 2 won't be, since game publishers will see that massive Switch 1 install base, still make versions of their games for the Switch 1 if at all feasible and give your average consumer less of a reason to go get one.
Sure, but that is the norm for any given game system. Early adopters are enthusiasts who want the latest and greatest and accept that there are few exclusive experiences on the new console. Most hold on to their older system as the catalog of games exclusive to the new system becomes more enticing.
There are already a significant amount of mainstream games that do not release on the switch due to hardware limitations. More robust hardware means that many of those games will be able to be ported to the switch 2.
I suspect the switch 2 will sell well, but it always hinges on game support over the long term
I wonder how many Roblox games might exist as prior art. Pet Simulator and Fishing simulator come to mind, as do many thousands of other hatching / catching games on Roblox.
Maybe it’s because we’re finding out that bad actors were getting federal funding for the last 9 years to disrupt gaming but Nintendo and Game Freak legally defending a patent seems like a non-event.
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 time a new topic is posted.
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 brands more than they care about the utility of them.
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and even Valve all suffer from this to a degree. They're fighting for shrinking margins in an industry that is consolidating and seeking faster turnaround with lower headcount. Sony wants exclusives, Microsoft wants studios, Valve wants clients, and Nintendo wants to keep their preexisting studios from collapsing. Game Freak is on death's doorstep, HAL hasn't developed a real video game since Mother 3, Intelligent Systems is begging for someone to shoot them and Nintendo EPD has been sliding in quality since the Switch's release. Nintendo has every incentive to stay in their lane and try to salvage what they can.
I personally quite like Nintendo, but I'm also willing to see them for their flaws. I don't think their legal stance against YouTubers or C&Ds against Pokemon fangames will be their undoing, though. Nintendo is most likely to collapse for the same reasons Sony and Microsoft are threatened; games need to be made cheaper and faster, which is hard to equate with quality. If tariffs take away your hardware margins and indies destroy your software margins, the entire concept of a "game console" may not persist much longer.
Are they gonna go against Dragon Quest VIII? After playing for a while you met a crazy guy that runs a ring of monsters and he then encumbers you with capturing monsters all around the world and put them to compete against each other on the arena. Are the gonna go against Hogwarts? They also have a mechanic of capturing monsters around the world. There's probably other examples out there but those are the ones I could remember.
I'm awful at discussions because I cannot keep track of the facts. I tried to google it before writing this message but my brain is in another place. Nintendo fought and still fights pretty hard against emulators, roms and developers who creates them or even youtubers who post content about it, yet, they were caught selling emulators and roms to the public. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw a video from MVG about this. By the way, MVG was threaten by Nintendo himself.
It's certainly terrible. But I don't think lawsuits like this threaten Nintendo at all. They own the Pokemon IP and want a court to rule whether or not their gameplay patent is violated. Worst case scenario is that they lose, and Nintendo could appeal the ruling or sue Palworld for something else like character likeness. Since Nintendo has prior art, their advantage in court is pretty sizable. Since they hire lawyers on retainer, they can effectively force the Palworld devs to settle out-of-court.
While I don't necessarily consider Palworld in the wrong, they clearly knew they were flying close to the sun. Nintendo is going to burn them for that, whether it's right or wrong or even legally correct. It's just what they do.
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).
Looks like this patent is for capturing a virtual creature with a throwable item. The whole concept is obviously comical, but for additional laughs, this is an opportunity to check out how software patents are written. To quote:
> A non-limiting example of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a game program of the present non-limiting example is executed by a computer of an information processing apparatus. The game program causes the computer to perform operations comprising: switching between at least a first and a second mode, based on a first operation input; and in the first mode, determining an aiming direction in a virtual space, based on a second operation input, and causing a player character to launch, in the aiming direction, an item that affects a field character disposed on a field in the virtual space, based on a third operation input, and when the item is launched at a place where the field character is disposed, giving an effect associated with the item to the field character, and in the second mode, determining the aiming direction, based on the second operation input, and causing the player character to launch, in the aiming direction, a fighting character that fights, based on the third operation input, and when the fighting character is launched at a place where the field character is disposed, causing the field character and the fighting character to start fighting against each other on the field.
>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!
I wonder if they're going to assert it against games like World of Final Fantasy which had people throwing capture... cubes.
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?
yes
>The patent mentions the ability to aim the pokeball which wasn't in the first 3 Gameboy games.
Sure but I'd say aiming is more or less the natural evolution of "$X in 3D instead of 2D." Obviously Nintendo disagrees and perhaps the patent system disagrees (depending on the outcome of whatever court cases happen), but I disagree with them.
> depending on the outcome of whatever court cases happen
do you not mean the bribery of patent agents?
To answer your question, starting with Pokemon Legends Arceus[1], battles take place in the same overworld that you explore in.
You can see an example of this in action at 3:12 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR7ZooH9Zos
[1]: This also carries over to Pokemon Scarlet/Violet, which is the latest mainline entry and will presumably remain the new standard going forward? Arceus was seen (and received) as more of a paid beta test for the system since the overworld was a bit empty at times
> 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)
> a fighting character that fights
THERE! It's only for fighting characters that fight, just make a driving character that drives, or a flying character that flies.
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 them $$$$$$$$ for it to have a their own similar card game
these shouldn't be allowed imo
> Blame the government. You shouldn't be allowed to patent game mechanics IMO.
Much of the current patent laws are international law regulated by the WTO. Our current agreement was signed by Clinton.
I think it needs an overhaul. Cut the strict 20 year expiration time in half at least, and implement other reforms as needed. Delegate more regulatory authority to nations and maybe more or less depending on industry or application. Patents should also require that you use it or lose it.
The patented game mechanic I am most bummed won’t be appearing in other games is Death Stranding’s desire pathing. Having other players in an open word “wear” paths into the map was extremely cool.
I missed that one. For me it is the Nemesis System from Shadow of Mordor/War. They made 2 games and haven't done anything with it since but they still patented it.
They patent that stuff not because they want to use it but because they want to block and stifle the competition — it’s truly despicable if you ask me
I'd suggest "tax" is probably more accurate than "block" or "stifle", especially if they've not released anything since
I'm aware. It is still a massive bummer they couldn't even make anymore games since they limited anyone else from making them without paying out.
Sounds like Animal Crossing City Folk's much-hated "animal tracks," which they ditched the very next game because everyone hated them lol.
It's interesting to see that mechanic is desirable in a different context.
The way it's implemented is clever. Players gradually wear down challenging terrain, incentivizing you to take those easy paths. But the mechanic subtly solves a problem with open world settings, bringing order to infinite choice: you can go this way.
You also get notified when other players follow paths you've made, which feels great.
https://www.reddit.com/r/shadowofmordor/comments/pzo3ri/what...
I looked it up. Good grief that is a ridiculous patent
Ugh, imagine if Renaissance painters took out patents on the color blue or perspective drawing. This is where we’re at with game design.
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.
So Nintendo is claiming patent infringement for a patent that was registered after Palworld was released? It seems a bit nonsensical, am I understanding it correctly?
I'm not a lawyer, but I have 20+ patents. There are some pathological situations where company A launches a product after Company B has applied for a patent, but before the patent is issued. Also, there are rules for prior art, related to the timing of when the prior art became known (through publication, release of a product, etc). It can get even more screwy when an inventor files for a patent in more than one country.
Company A might have known about the application, but was confident that it would not be issued or defensible.
Things like "obviousness" and "prior art" can be hard to judge unless you're a patent lawyer... or a judge.
> Things like "obviousness" and "prior art" can be hard to judge unless you're a patent lawyer... or a judge.
Yea, examiners will grant patents that might have no chance in court. So what tends to matter more is not whether someone has a patent, but whether it was successfully used in court.
(Patent attorney) The patents in question are continuation patents. Essentially, Nintendo filed a patent application before Palworld was released that disclosed the mechanics Nintendo is patenting now. That original application only included claims covering a subset of the mechanics described in the application. They can continue filing additional applications with new claims that cover the mechanics described entirely in the original application and get the benefit of having the priority date of the original application so long as they meet certain requirements about the timing.
Original application: I invented A, B, C, D, E, and F and want A protected; here’s some $. Follow-up application 1: I want invention B protected, here’s some more $. Follow up application 2: I want C protected, here’s some more $.
Part of the idea behind it is that you don’t have to waste money protecting parts of what you invented that don’t pan out (additional claims cost additional money beyond a certain number of claims). It’s not particularly fair, since you can watch what a competitor does (as Nintendo has done here), and essentially backdate a patent as though you had filed for it before the competitor did their thing.
It could be a continuation application that claims priority to an earlier application.
It seems truly absurd what you can patent nowadays. The system seems utterly broken for its original purpose which was to encourage ingenuity and inventiveness. It now does the exact opposite.
One easy solution is to give such talks in primary/middle schools so children stop buying Nintendo games. Give them all bad publicity.
I wouldn't care separating Nintendo lawyers and gamedevs. If the lawyers are shady then the whole thing is shady.
Ah, yes, that's how we solve pathological institutional problems. Use public education to convince kids not to play the video games they like.
Not really, it is just to convince them that Nintendo has a huge lawyer army awaiting their ... overzealous fans, so they can decide whether it worths to buy Nintendo games or not. If they decide to buy, sure, nothing we can do.
Also it's definitely not part of public education. Not everything happens in a public school is public education. It can stay in the form of clus or forums.
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"
kids really don't care
Maybe yes, maybe not, only need to lower the sales by a few percents.
Haven't we seen enough by now?
The problem is very easy to solve; quit buying their products, refuse to deal with them in any way, tell them why, inform others; lather, rinse repeat.
We tend to underestimate our power, without us they're nothing.
Isn't this impossible because you can't get a patent if there is prior art? So they shouldn't be able to use a patent against a video game that came out before the patent was filed right?
The prior art restrictions are no longer in place, and the system has become first to file. The America Invents Act changed to the first to file from first to invent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy%E2%80%93Smith_America_In...
This is only half true. Yes, the country switched to first-to-file, but the definition of prior art was expanded. This means it's easier to strike down a patent due to prior art now than before.
Your link shows that prior art is still a thing.
only with in the grace period. prior art previously had no such limitation. if you could prove you had the thing before the patent filer, you could void the patent. now, if you wait beyond the grace period, ooops
this seems to be overlooked and i'm not sure why. you're like the 3rd person
This is completely wrong. Please don’t opine on legal matters if you can’t be bothered to educate yourself.
When the prior art is yours you can, the pocket monster company is a joint venture with Nintendo.
only if you file within the grace period. otherwise, you snooze, you loose
What about Palworld?
I found this explanation of Nintendo vs Palworld to be enlightening: https://youtu.be/8apzrwv75i0?feature=shared
There are many interesting points in this video for me but most saliently:
-Nintendo is not as litigious as it could be given how many possible infringements it could potentially persue
-It is well aware that it loses fan goodwill whenever it shuts down some innocent fangame, but the way that patent and copyright law is written it is apperently a significant risk diluting their brand if they don't take actions to protect it, so it is a balancing act they have to calculate
-Sony's backing of Palworld is the particularly alarming part for Nintendo that is likely spurring them into action in this case
This isn't a defense of Nintendo, but I think it's interesting to see some deeper systematic reasons for why they do what they do
Nintendo is very nervous that Sony threatens their Pokemon piggy bank for the first time and is making moves to ensure that this never happens again.
Palword is not a Sony game though.
Technically no, but Sony and Pocketpair have created a joint venture called Palworld Entertainment.
https://www.ign.com/articles/palworld-dev-signs-deal-with-so...
Insane that any of this stuff is patentable - patents seem more and more like a way to block innovation and competition completely.
Especially in the LLM era...
This makes me happy that I've moved my entire family over to Steam Deck from Switch. I like some of what Nintendo does, but their stand on intellectual property is unconscionable.
This reminds me of how Sco [0] started going after everybody as they became less and less relevant eventually leading to their demise.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes?use...
The difference is that Nintendo has been a market leader since the 80s and has been suing for patents and copyright infringement ever since - so their demise is far from guaranteed and they are just as relevant as they were when I was in primary school
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.
This is really strage but can someone with experience tell us how the approval process works?
Is it not a bit difficult to patent game mechanics? Maybe I'm wrong but why wouldn't iD software just patented the concept of an FPS back when?
Depends way too much on the examiner.
This is a sign of the beginning of the end for them. When you’re rotten to the core you do things like this instead of actually innovating and creating new great products. It doesn’t end well long term.
Nintendo's been notoriously litigious since at least the 90s.
Nintendo has been draconian since the 80s, this isn't anything new for them.
No, not even close. Nintendo is not a VC funded startup fighting for their survival. The Nintendo switch 2 is right around the corner and looks like it is going to sell extremely well, after the massive success of the switch 1
Patents are not that expensive to file. They are not diverting any meaningful amount of cash flow to this. This is a side activity of a few employees
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 of what OP said is that this is the full time job of a very small number of people whose mandate was probably one utterance from the CEO. Executing on that is mostly common sense, thus requiring very little mindshare from anyone senior - thus, a side activity for the company as a whole.
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.
> The Nintendo switch 2 is right around the corner and looks like it is going to sell extremely well, after the massive success of the switch 1
Just like the Wii U sold extremely well after the massive success of the Wii.
One would hope they learned from the mistakes of the Wii U - and based on their first release about it, and supporting backwards compatibility, it seems they have.
The switch 2, as shown so far is much closer to the original switch’s design ethos than the Wii U was to the original Wii. In a clear marketing mishandling, many people didn’t even know the Wii U was something separate from the Wii. A lot of people thought I was an accessory
The success of the Switch 1 might be a reason why the Switch 2 won't be, since game publishers will see that massive Switch 1 install base, still make versions of their games for the Switch 1 if at all feasible and give your average consumer less of a reason to go get one.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you
Sure, but that is the norm for any given game system. Early adopters are enthusiasts who want the latest and greatest and accept that there are few exclusive experiences on the new console. Most hold on to their older system as the catalog of games exclusive to the new system becomes more enticing.
There are already a significant amount of mainstream games that do not release on the switch due to hardware limitations. More robust hardware means that many of those games will be able to be ported to the switch 2.
I suspect the switch 2 will sell well, but it always hinges on game support over the long term
How old are you?
They have a massive war chest. They're not going anywhere.
I wonder how many Roblox games might exist as prior art. Pet Simulator and Fishing simulator come to mind, as do many thousands of other hatching / catching games on Roblox.
Friendly reminder: By supporting their creation with your wallet, you're virtually funding their lawyer to do such unethical things.
Maybe it’s because we’re finding out that bad actors were getting federal funding for the last 9 years to disrupt gaming but Nintendo and Game Freak legally defending a patent seems like a non-event.
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 time a new topic is posted.
Previous one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42913914
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 brands more than they care about the utility of them.
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and even Valve all suffer from this to a degree. They're fighting for shrinking margins in an industry that is consolidating and seeking faster turnaround with lower headcount. Sony wants exclusives, Microsoft wants studios, Valve wants clients, and Nintendo wants to keep their preexisting studios from collapsing. Game Freak is on death's doorstep, HAL hasn't developed a real video game since Mother 3, Intelligent Systems is begging for someone to shoot them and Nintendo EPD has been sliding in quality since the Switch's release. Nintendo has every incentive to stay in their lane and try to salvage what they can.
I personally quite like Nintendo, but I'm also willing to see them for their flaws. I don't think their legal stance against YouTubers or C&Ds against Pokemon fangames will be their undoing, though. Nintendo is most likely to collapse for the same reasons Sony and Microsoft are threatened; games need to be made cheaper and faster, which is hard to equate with quality. If tariffs take away your hardware margins and indies destroy your software margins, the entire concept of a "game console" may not persist much longer.
Are they gonna go against Dragon Quest VIII? After playing for a while you met a crazy guy that runs a ring of monsters and he then encumbers you with capturing monsters all around the world and put them to compete against each other on the arena. Are the gonna go against Hogwarts? They also have a mechanic of capturing monsters around the world. There's probably other examples out there but those are the ones I could remember.
I'm awful at discussions because I cannot keep track of the facts. I tried to google it before writing this message but my brain is in another place. Nintendo fought and still fights pretty hard against emulators, roms and developers who creates them or even youtubers who post content about it, yet, they were caught selling emulators and roms to the public. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw a video from MVG about this. By the way, MVG was threaten by Nintendo himself.
It's certainly terrible. But I don't think lawsuits like this threaten Nintendo at all. They own the Pokemon IP and want a court to rule whether or not their gameplay patent is violated. Worst case scenario is that they lose, and Nintendo could appeal the ruling or sue Palworld for something else like character likeness. Since Nintendo has prior art, their advantage in court is pretty sizable. Since they hire lawyers on retainer, they can effectively force the Palworld devs to settle out-of-court.
While I don't necessarily consider Palworld in the wrong, they clearly knew they were flying close to the sun. Nintendo is going to burn them for that, whether it's right or wrong or even legally correct. It's just what they do.
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).