Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit | VGC
www.videogameschronicle.com
Palworld is patching out various features related to Nintendo’s lawsuit…

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.

  • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    21 hours ago

    Copyright exists to create a temporary monopoly so the creator can recoup their creation costs and some profit on top

    Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree? You’re repeating talking points like nobody’s heard them before and contradicting yourself every other comment.

    How many transition steps are needed

    That was a rhetorical question, let me try rephrasing that. If A+B+C=D and D+E=F is A a requirement to get F? Or is it no longer relevant because it’s 2 steps removed?

    Let’s say my company gets funding to disseminate OSHA information to employees

    I wish I got paid to avoid fines. I understand that is how your deeply corrupt system works but you really can’t understand the financial incentives there can you? Imagine that illegal parking is a huge problem so instead of parking tickets they pay everyone who owns a car to sit through a parking information seminar. Do you honestly think that isn’t going to factor into your decision on whether you should own/drive a car? Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      14 hours ago

      Creation costs like the cost of an advanced degree?

      No, copyright has little to do with advanced degrees. The creation costs are the time and resources needed to produce the book, movie, software project, or other work, which can be substantial.

      There’s a better argument for patents, but still weak.

      That was a rhetorical question

      Right, and rhetorical questions by definition don’t have good answers. There needs to be a reasonable limit here, and what’s reasonable depends on what specifically we’re talking about.

      For example, I benefitted a lot from my public education, but I can’t really quantify the impact to a a dollar amount, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say my career success is due to public funding.

      For me to accept that an innovation came from the public sector, I’d need to see a direct link between public funding and the innovation. Just saying a company got a tax incentive to put an office somewhere doesn’t mean all innovations from that office is government funded.

      Is it unreasonable to say that the state is paying you to drive?

      Yes, that’s unreasonable.

      Driving is heavily subsidized by the state. For example, a lot of the funding for roads comes from income taxes instead of direct use taxes like registration and gas taxes. Even so, I don’t consider that to be paying me to drive, but it is an incentive to drive.

      The government does pay me to have babies since I get a tax credit if I have kids. The difference is I have to do something proactive to get the benefit, whereas the roads will be funded whether I drive or not.

      If a company gets a tax incentive to put an office somewhere, that doesn’t mean all inventions made there are publicly funded unless that’s specifically called out in the incentive deal.