Asmongold TV's video on PalWorld's recent complaints (summary inside)
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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.