• Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Dont steal my base model that I patented and made entirely by hand and then claim it as your model.

    its that simple. As barbaric as the VRCHAT community can be sometimes, I can wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% a crime to take someone else’s hard work, tweak it, and then pretend that you own it. Pay people their fucking respects/royalties or take a different approach. Toby Fox did it, Every other Pocket Monster-like Series in Japan did it, and so on. if your gonna make a product similar to another, especially fucking Nintendo with how notorious they are for copyright striking, TAKE THE STEPS AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT. Don’t churn out a “Pokemon with guns” and then get shocked with your copyright stricken. Thats fucking stupid to me. And its even stupider people are shocked it’d fuckin happen.

    There’s deadass so many routes they could’ve went with, Art-styles they could’ve went with, fucking game mechanics they could’ve went with. And they chose something that 90% of people can agree “looks like Pokémon, smells like Pokémon, functions similar Pokémon”

    I mean for GOD FUCKING SAKES, At least GO WITH DIFFERENT MONSTER IDEAS. We have an ENTIRE WORLD Filled with Cryptids and mystical beasts of all kind, and Palworld STILL CHOSE TO GO for Yokai/Japanese based creatures? Get the fuck outta here with that. Homeboy coulda did American mythos and got away with that, no ones holding a patent against the design of The Flatwoods monster?? Let alone is there a “pokemon” clone of Australian Mythos, so why the fuck are we still trying to do what’s already been done to death and then getting shocked with it falls flat or is criticized.

    • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You are conflating copyright and patents. Copyright is protection for the expression of an idea, like the art design. This is a patent issue, which is a protection of how something works.

      If somehow I patent a vague mechanic like “a method of selecting weapons with the directions of an analogue stick or mouse, presented as an 8 direction on screen circle.” Then I could sue Red Dead Redemption and Batman Arkham, despite there being no copyright infringement with whatever game I made with that feature.

      • Cock_Inspecting_Asexual@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models?? not the design of them but the fact they took Nintendo models and tweaked them???

        If im deadass wrong I will 100% shut tf up and delete my rants.

        • rain_worl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          according to first sentence of article, it was a patent infringement lawsuit, so you are deadass wrong.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models??

          No, they’re not. The word “patent” is used in every single article about this repeatedly. Patents are not the same as copyrights.

          A copyright protects a creative work: A work of fiction, a movie, a character.

          A patent protects the method in which the way a thing functions: A machine, a chip, an algorithm, or in Nintendo’s assertion certain vague gameplay concepts.