Asmongold TV's video on PalWorld's recent complaints (summary inside)
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (47)
sorted by:
Basically, PalWorld is an Open World Crafting game with Creature Collecting aspects that reminds people of Pokemon.
To me, it looks fun, but it's in a significantly janky Early Access game that still has some rough spots; but I totally get why people want to play it.
The major problem that people are drumming up about it is that the developers may have used AI generated assets; and that is (nowadays) a culture war issue that has emerged; with the political left feeling very directly threatened by it (since most of their Patreon porn-art & erotica side hustles will suffer).
And while I'm all for respecting property rights, I simply don't see the arguments they are making as legitimate. The similarity to The Pokemon Company's characters simply isn't enough to warrant claims of copyright infringement. It's not just different color schemes, but different anatomy, different elemental effects, different shapes. These characters, if made by humans, would be more than transformative enough to warrant being treated separate creations. The game itself, frankly, appeals to a different audience than even Pokemon: Arceus would appeal to. I see not infringement here. Just angry Leftists grasping at straws as an appropriate use of AI makes progress.
If you want me to get very dated, I'd say that PalWorld is closer to Paleo Pines than it is Pokemon. Although, PalWorld's real direct competition is probably Rust.
That, and there's probably some Pokemon consoomers that are flailing at the fact that some shit-heel developers managed to make a servicable pokemon like game that is going to force The Pokemon Company to fucking innovate.
Asmon‘a argument is retarded. He’s basically saying that the market doesn’t care whether or not it’s plagiarism because people obviously bought millions of units, but no one is arguing that the game isn’t successful. People are arguing that the game might violate copyright law. The success of your product doesn’t determine its legality. Nintendo will weigh their options and decide if it’s worth pursuing litigation. If they Sue, then a court will decide if Palworld violated copyright. The end.
Personally, I think it’s pretty close, and the argument is made stronger by the probable use of AI. I’m not sure how copyright even survives if all it takes is a 5% alteration generated automatically and cheaply by computer programs. Of course, the death of copyright - and the “creative” class in general - doesn’t sound too bad to me either.
For one, Nintendo has a history of nipping potential copyright infringements (such as romhacks or remaster/sequel projects) in the bud, so if they knew about this already, they might think this is distinct enough.
Second, and what I think people like Asmon are arguing, is that if the product is successful enough, it could hurt Nintendo's reputation to try taking it down after the fact, or it becomes increasingly expensive as the competitor gains revenue.
Success, in a way, could determine "legality."
Success also determines the potential pool for awarding damages. Attacking a suddenly big fish discourages the smaller ones, too.
Nintendo does plenty of stupid shit that pisses off a lot of people. Nintendo survives because they protect their wildly valuable IP.
Nintendo doesn't give two shits about its reputation when it comes to protecting it's IP. They will sue if they think they have a case regardless if it was the best selling game of all time.
"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
Tell that to Shadow of Mordor. Again, I’m not unopposed to AI shattering existing copyright law and the parasites who benefit from it.
I don't think he's using that as a legal argument. I think he's arguing that the criticism isn't based in law, but morality.
These are sufficiently different creative works. To be clear, I remember Akilah v. Sargon, where Mr. Benjamin took clips of Akilah's videos, placed them next to each other, and won a default judgement. He didn't make anything physically new. His assembly of different video clips was enough to pass the test of fair use.
In this case, this is more about the end product itself, which is very significantly different. If they were color-swaps, I could accept it, but similar characters aren't an infringement.
The claims of AI use are unfounded by the way. The most anyone has produced is that the CEO isn't a raving lunatic frothing at the mouth against AI. Not being against AI=Worthy of being accused of using undisclosed AI (which would be a violation of steam policy and get them yeeted if undisclosed. So pretty strong reasons not to hide it, especially since steam is fine with it so long as you're upfront)
To be honest, I think the copyright infringement claims are so fallacious that there simply isn't enough there to make a difference, even if every drawing were done by an artist, or by an AI.
That's a more fair argument. If they didn't document it in violation of Steam policy, I can understand the complaint.
all of the design comparisons/complaints seem about as legitimate as going "Simpsons did it already!"
We've seen plenty of games like this come and go. It's fun for now and will fade after the novelty has worn off. I haven't looked too much into it but it looks like -- as you said -- a Rust clone with Pokemon-like creatures. The novelty is what's driving interests rather anything innovative. Again, I'm unfamiliar with this product but is there actually anything innovative about it or is it really just Pokemon-survival with base building and guns?
Because if that's the case I think the stark lack of good games in the mainstream is likely what's driving interest, but much like Battlebit, after everyone gets their 30+ hours or so out of the game they will move on to the next product and forget that it even existed, sort of like that game that started the Battle Royale craze, The Culling (the original one, not the re-release).
I wouldn't say that they have an innovative system, just that the assemblage is innovative. Creature Collection normally isn't a factor within a base builder, nor is 3D real time boss fights.
Each component has been done elsewhere, but not in this way. I do consider that innovative, because I consider the assembly of unused gameplay elements within a core game play loop to be innovative.
I'm also a huge fan of the FPS/RTS genera for a similar reason.
I love survival games, but this looks like it's made for retards and kids. Nothing wrong with that, I'd say they're the largest group of gamers.
What pisses me off (besides the Fortnite graphics) is that everyone started playing this at the same time as if on cue. Just like when that retarded Harry Potter game came out.
People just HAVE to consume the product.
Sigh, this is just too accurate and depressing
It's not made for kids with the amount of "pal" slaughtering in it. It actually seems more made for autists to fuck about in. That could fit into your retard category though.
Yeah pal world looks like a hype-bubble meme game like Choo Choo Charlie, with just slightly more gameplay meat on its bones. They may only be 3 Devs, but it seems pretty likely they're getting backed up by plenty of marketing instead, especially the streamer agencies, plus the close ties with Epic Games.
Also there are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than 2 Pokémon style knock-offs out there and plenty more in development. My personal favourite remains Monster Sanctuary for making it full team Vs team instead of a series of mindless 1v1s.
Sorry, didn't mean to overstate, nothing concrete to link to direct marketing but the hype and exposure and just the formulaic coverage it has been getting by steamers, and how obviously they are glossing over and avoiding complaining about game breaking bugs like boss encounters falling through the map floor, just leaves me judging it more likely than not that this is being streamed as a business transaction than for fun.
It's definitely astroturfed.
You're not watching the right streamers, then.
Seeing all the jank and server issues they run into is half the fun.
Oh it's live so they can't help but run into the glitches, it's just when they try super hard to make jokes out of even the lame bugs, or ones who aren't usually shy about bitching or criticizing mechanics exclusively brush off broken boss fights and lost pets.
They're professionals so they can act natural whilst doing it, but you see it very occasionally in collaborations where one of them is like "ixnay el itchbay, I can't talk about that bro" when the other starts tearing into a game too much. Like full on Jonah Hill neck-chop meme mode. They can fuck around a bit, but they just can't be outright negative when there's an active business relationship there. It's also easier to see the pattern when you're aware which ones share the same agencies and which ones don't.
But TBH, I don't habitually watch streams live, I'll just skim VODs from a bunch of them for specific games of interest or to keep a finger on the scene, so my character judgements may just be off from low exposure.
It's more because Nintendo and I think it's Game Freak have been slacking at times on the Pokemon IP
If you compare it to when the first games were coming out, you can tell they had EXTREMELY high talent behind them in making the perfect sequels of Silver and Gold.
But since then it's been hit and miss with some stand outs and then some just seeming they released them to maintain control of IP.
Some competition is more than welcome even if it's artificial and you can get away with a lot on 'pokemon adjacent' games, just look up the amount of R34 games based on it lol!
Even Silver and Gold wouldn't have worked without Iwata fixing Game Freak's mountain of spaghetti code, and that's before he managed to fit Kanto into the cart.
Pretty much, the jump from Yellow to Gold and Silver was groundbreaking given that we got from the day and night cycle, breeding, time travel trading, actual colour, list goes on.
Fuck nintendont. It's also not plagiarism to make capture monster games, there are plenty of em. I dont like this game and will not buy it because 1. It looks lame as fuck and 2. I was never interested in Pokemon to begin with. With that in mind, I still have no qualms with this games presence as it is emulating another IP without copying that IPs exact materials (there is no pikachu for example). Nintendont doesn't own duel monsters as an idea. If you fail to fill a niche, someone else will. I've been enjoying watching the nintendo fanboys tryign to claim this is copyright infringement and defend fucking nintendonts "honour."
"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
I misread that and showed my age by thinking: "did he say Nintendogs?"
I'm certainly not going to argue that base building and creature collecting is going to appeal to everyone, but I agree that the fact that TPC is going to have to address a threat will help the genera improve.
I think we're all fans of one or two ultra-niche generas that get little love, and get dominated by a single corporation that monopolizes whatever it can. I don't think that 2024 is going to be one of the best times to be an indie creator, but it's certainly going to be a good one.
And hell yeah, good on BattleBit.
If they used AI for some assets that completely explains why troons are bawling and trying to find ways to convince Nintendo to kill the game. I thought there was an unusual amount of troon rage that wasn't just based on white knighting for Nintendo's intellectual property rights.
I think that's the real complaint here. Starving Artist Troons don't want AI to have success because it displaces the minimal talent they have.
I don't think anyone actually cares about the IP issue (and I don't think there is one).
It's amusing seeing the kind of unsubstantiated claims being spread around by leftists on this, showing just how truly clueless they are about AI and tech. I've even seen people claiming that the devs "totally stole meshes, textures, and assets", despite the fact that it would take far more time and effort to do that than to make it all from scratch, given how low-detailed the art in Pokemon and Palworld actually is.
And of course it's all just an excuse to push their terrified fears about AI as it pertains to fields they tend to populate. Funny how leftists only now pretend to care about issues of automation as it pertains to jobs.
they're really trying to link the argument that if a copyrighted work is used in the source material of AI generation is therefore copyright infringement, but this argument is still very much in a legal gray zone. I think the courts will probably rule against that and claim that if the outcome is transformative enough, than it doesn't really matter, since it's effectively like using pictures as a reference for an artist.
Not only is it legally challenging to make a case, but it's damn near unenforceable or realistically detectable. There's almost no practical way they'll ever be able to guarantee any kind of effective copyright protection against its use in AI generation.
Sure, they might be able to target some larger companies who've been hoovering content up in droves, or they could try to slow down progress in the industry (and let the Chinese bank on it) but the average person can easily make and train their own LORA models for example just from home, with a basic gaming system.
There is fuck all these artists or anyone claiming to represent them are going to be able to do.
To be honest, it's going to require people to increase their quality, and exclusivity. It's just that the majority are going to be left out to dry.
Congrats, digital art will be cheap and readily available.
But not art you've done with an ink or a brush.
Why would troons care about AI usage?
You can use AI to easily and completely freely generate exactly the kind of art commissions their buddies try to charge $100 or more per piece for.
Was AI art generation even close to what it is now when Palworld was first announced?
I doubt it.
Bluntly, AI image creation is in a very grey area in copyright. Any argument can be used against tracing, similar styles, and even parody. It’ll take a big company to take up the mantle but it could prevent the same company from using the tech themselves. It’s an interesting legal shock that might not even end with a resolution for years.
I agree that it's a genuinely vague area of law. However, I think the finished product speaks to the fact that the figures themselves are transformed enough to be different without infringing on anyone's property rights.
Strange... pearl is gonna be doing a monster capturing game too. The one with preteens capturing monsters in the city.
Who is pearl?