>>55309591The statement sounded more like a boilerplate "We know! Stop e-mailing us about it! If we could have sued them, we would have when it was announced three years ago!" buried in legalieze to me.
>>55309806>$5 says that TPC won't learn anything from what Palworld did like not having the selection of ridable Pokemon be gatekept to a a select few Pokemon.Why would they? Let's be honest, Scarlet/Violet broke records, and even after Palworld whatever is the next Pokemon game is likely going to break more records, especially if it launches on Switch 2.
That's the problem, it's the world's most profitable franchise, they have no reason to care when it will sell anyway, not like Palworld will make a scratch in the sales of whatever the next game is. That is why it's been going downhill for years and they don't care to fix it. Something would have to actually effect their profits for them to give a shit, and I can't see even Palworld doing that.
>>55310659>do you really think they will sit by and let Palword take any of their territory?Palworld was made by a Japanese studio. IIRC the dev's office is even close to the Pokemon offices.
>>55311796>The bone structures on something that is basically a tube happen to be similarYou don't say? Considering that the Pals have far more animations than Pokemon, even with different Pals having their own animations for the SAME action, a bit hard to argue it was copied for the sake of animations.
>>55311852>>55311858Yes, by what people generally call "the squint test", where if you can barely tell the difference if you squint at a picture of two things it's close enough to be infringing. Nobody is going to see a screenshot of someone shooting a mon with an AK-47 or literally butchering humans for meat and think "Yup, that's Pokemon"
>>55313091>It would have been an easy lawsuit but Gamefreak literally doesn't have a pair.Of.... Pockets you could say?
