I would argue it's not a bullshit article as I have yet to hear a single example of what legitimate (in the real sense, not related to Japanese patent law) case Nintendo has.

Well then the fact that we still don't know what the case is really about is exactly why these articles are useless. No information in there.

[+] Agent_Karyo@lemmy.world -18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

What is your argument here? Your support the Japanese patent law irrespective of whether it reflects reality? You would be OK with Japanese patent that is de facto non-valid (i.e. the approach was already used in games 10+ years ago) just to support a random company?

I am going off memory, but one example would be one of the Japanese gaming companies patenting cross-game saves (release to sequel); an approach that was implemented by the Ultima games 10+ years before the patent was filled? Do you support this?

We have access to Palworld, we have access to Nintendo products. If commentary criticizing Nintendo is "greedy clickbait", then what innovation has been abused by Palworld? Can you provide an example in context of gaming experiences?

[–] Butterpaderp@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They just think the article sucks, which it does lmao

It's not that deep, dude

[–] missingno@fedia.io 4 points 1 month ago

Let's go back to the start of this comment thread:

I love how this continues to crank out articles with 0 information and everyone speculating what it might be about.

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo are dickheads, but you can clearly see how everyone greedily clicks on these articles considering how often they get rehashed.

That's the argument: these articles add nothing to the discussion. And you responding to that with "but can you prove Nintendo is right?" isn't the point and also isn't adding anything to the discussion.