r/JRPG • u/thegta5p • 3d ago
News Nintendo Was Granted A Patent For Summoning Mechanics
https://gamesfray.com/last-week-nintendo-and-the-pokemon-company-received-a-u-s-patent-on-summoning-a-character-and-letting-it-fight-another/I am not sure how over reaching this patent is or how it would be used, but I feel this affects many games including JRPGs. SMT, Persona, and Digimon are franchises I can think of that will be affected by this. This is a threat to the industry since now companies will not be able to take this mechanic and improve upon it. To put it into perspective imagine if ATLUS decided to patent the weakness mechanic from SMT. Or imagine if ATLUS decided to patent social links from Persona. We can go even further and have the hybrid combat seen in the new Trails games be patent by Falcom.
Patent mechanics like this will destroy creativity in the industry. Allowing other companies to reuse existing popular mechanics and putting their own spin on it something that is core to not just JRPGs but to games. This patent alone will affect various JRPG franchises both big and small. Maybe Nintendo will not sue all these companies but it will only take one lawsuit that will effectively prevent anyone from making a game like this. This patent was done in response to palworld, a game from an Indie company. So it is not out of the question that they will try to sue any company that makes a new game that has those mechanics.
193
u/DataSurging 3d ago
How? How can they patent something that has existed long before their games?
64
u/Sweet_Temperature630 3d ago
Clearly the people giving them the patent don't know anything about video games, cause they're definitely using the "no prior use" ruling
9
u/iNuclearPickle 2d ago
The U.S is ran by idiots
3
48
u/Upstairs-Yard-2139 3d ago
Best guess. They had the Japanese patent and somehow convinced the American patent office to honor it as well.
22
u/-Kazen- 3d ago
That's not how it works btw. Patent examiners couldn't care less if another country has already patented it. The US has the most strict patent policies in the world. The only real benefit would be if they're claiming foreign priority to get that earlier date, and in this case they are.
It was a continuation of a prior application from 2022 that appears to have been restricted for being too broad. This is a part of that 2022 application. I didn't fully read this patent as its late, but people also need to look at what claims were accepted and which claims were rejected.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Vataro 3d ago
While you're not exactly wrong, I wouldn't say it's fully true that "Patent examiners couldn't care less if another country has already patented it". Having received an allowance in a foreign jurisdiction can be used to expedite prosecution in the US on the same claims, so it is at least possible that they could care (if the applicant makes them care) ;).
12
3d ago
thats not how it works at all
3
u/DonkeyAlternative431 3d ago
Can we just pin this comment at the top of this thread for all the “patent experts” here?
→ More replies (6)4
u/TheOnly_Anti 3d ago
Look at the patent and you'll see exactly how. It's not at all what the ragebait headline is suggesting.
57
38
u/Tlux0 3d ago
Look I like Nintendo more than most, but this patent sounds very broad.
→ More replies (24)25
u/Tremkl 3d ago
Yeah, it’s super bizarre that the headline is claiming a completely different patent. That being said, I don’t really find this patent defensible, either. I’ve definitely played games that change between land and air or land and water mounts automatically before.
8
u/TheOnly_Anti 3d ago
I just read the patent I agree that it's stupid. Even if other games didn't already do this, it wouldn't make sense that other games shouldn't streamline the controls like that.
20
u/dream208 3d ago
Storing a monster in a sphere or cylinder device and releasing them from the said device for battle is a concept that could be found from the early Dragon Quest. If anything, it is highly possible that original Pokémon got the inspiration of its core mechanism from DQ.
-7
u/TheOnly_Anti 3d ago
I'm not going to look at that patent, but having looked at two already, I have a strong feeling they define what a Nintendo switch is before they define the mechanic they're patenting. The two that I've read so far have defined what a Nintendo switch is, then described the implementation of the mechanic and describe it running on a Switch.
The two (1) (2) that I read were literally only to stop people from making a high quality Pokemon game on Switch. I have a very strong feeling the same applies to the patent you're talking about.
4
u/YesNinjas 3d ago
They aren't defining a switch, they are classifying it for digital use. This is common as patents need to specify very specific the application and scope first to narrow the application down.
1
u/TheOnly_Anti 3d ago
They are defining a switch. Per section 4, where they describe the diagrams of the switch configurations, and then reference those configurations when talking about the controls in later sections.
9
u/ExcellentWonder7857 3d ago
I feel like youre the one who is misunderstanding here. You even seem to think it is a game mechanic patented ONLY on the Switch?? Im a little flabbergasted.
Anyway the patent is pretty broad. It does not define what a "battle" state is. In ARPGs you often summon a minion. The Nintendo patent is actually not that complicated. It is written in plaintext.
You summon a secondary character (the summon). If the summon is near an enemy, it begins battle. If not, the summon is under automatic control. A secondary input can be used to move the summon. If the summon encounters an enemy, battle proceeds.
That's literally it. That's also how minions have worked in ARPGs and MMOs and other genres forever. No definition of "battle" is given. It is an extremely broad patent.
6
u/Crossbell0527 3d ago
That will require reading and not being a reactionary dolt, two things that Redditors are extremely bad at.
6
u/RyanitarTheTyranitar 3d ago
But they are great at making sweeping judgments with little to no empathy for another human being behind a screen.
→ More replies (3)3
69
u/Razmoudah 3d ago
Unless something was drastically changed in the last couple of months, Nintendo was specifically patenting the Pokeball mechanics, not summoning in general. That only affects Palworld as everyone else used different summoning mechanics. Further, it would be extremely hard to get a more comprehensive patent and enforce it against companies like Atlus or Bandai Namco, who have been using a summoning mechanic for over two decades without being challenged. Atlus in particular is in great shape, as they had such a mechanic before Pokémon was first created, and they can prove it.
However, I do agree with you that being able to patent specific mechanics, such as throwing a ball to capture and summon monsters, shouldn't be permitted. Now, a copyright for it, which includes things like the names of the balls used, is a different matter entirely, as someone would have to copy all of it to be in violation.
25
u/sagevallant 3d ago
This patent does not apply to the balls. It is anything that matches the combat system in Scarlet / Violet, if I understand it correctly.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Razmoudah 3d ago edited 3d ago
I didn't say the balls themselves, I said the method of using balls to capture and summon monsters.
That said, I haven't been closely following this, so it could have been changed. However, a patent of the general combat system is going to be much harder to enforce. After all, there's Megaten Online and the original Devil Summoner games, not to mention several other games that are potentially similar that are one or more decades old. This gives solid cause for the owners of those IPs to fight any claims made using that patent. Being able to show that you were using a system that would fall into the bounds of the patent decades before the patent was requested, and that the requester was aware of your using this system and they didn't try to file the patent or contest it then, gives a lot of weight in your favor for the patent to be ignored.
EDIT: fixed a typo
12
u/Ill_Act_1855 3d ago
You don’t even need to show you were using, just showing that anyone else did is enough to claim prior works and invalidate a patent because patents must be novel by law
7
u/Razmoudah 3d ago
Not exactly. There is a small time frame where something similar could come before it without invalidating it. However, this window is typically measured in days or months, not decades. Basically, it needs to be reasonably possible that you weren't aware that something similar already existed for it to stand.
3
u/Ill_Act_1855 3d ago
That’s fair but the main point is that as long as you could prove anyone had done something like the patent prior to the period you can get the patent invalidated in court (though any court case is going to be a long and expensive process that smaller studios might not want to deal with even if they could or most likely would win)
1
u/Razmoudah 3d ago
Correct. However, smaller studios don't have the finances for that legal battle, so it's still effective against them. It's the downside to making games on a shoestring budget.
5
u/sagevallant 3d ago
I would imagine it is to bully indies and new games rather than to fight legal battles with existing franchises.
5
u/Razmoudah 3d ago
Although technically true, the fact that the patent can't be enforced against older IPs is something a good lawyer can use against it to show that it was a wrongfully granted patent, and thus can't be enforced against the newcomers.
Sadly, small studios can't afford to litigate something like this, so we'll probably see it stand for now.
0
u/galanoobp 3d ago
It dosen't matter if they can fight the claims. Prospect of fighting Nintendo and US patent/copyright corrupt zombies alone is scary enough for companies to not even try. I have hopes that Sega atleast will try to make a statemnt but i don't have hopes.
1
u/AdhesivenessUsed9956 3d ago edited 3d ago
this is a new one...it's about summoned unit combat
The abstract description and visual examples could easily describe the Necromancer class in Diablo II... ... ...which came out 25 years ago. But it also covers giving manual orders...like in Summoner... ... ...which also came out 25 years ago.
2
u/Razmoudah 3d ago
Yeah, I got an alert about this topic this morning, which has a link to an article about the patent. Going by what's in the article I'm not entirely sure if it would apply to Diablo II and Summoner (I and II) or not, especially as, if I'm remembering correctly, Summoner is mostly autonomous combat with the option to give manual orders to the summons rather than purely manual combat. It seems specifically designed as an anti-Palworld patent, and going by the details of the mechanics in it, unless they want to argue that Diablo II and the Summoner duology 'infringe' on it, Nintendo did do it first. I would call it a rather murky gray area applying it to those three games, though with Microsoft now being the owner of the Diablo IP if a legal battle does result Microsoft will handily win it, and it'll be the only time I'll have ever been happy for them winning a lawsuit.
2
u/ender1200 14h ago
No it doesn't. The abstract specifically talks about taking control over the summoned character during battle, while controlling the summoner out of battle.
Besides, the abstract isn't the legally binding part.
1
u/Equivalent-Raise9509 14h ago
The visual examples don't determine a patent, though. It's the claims that matter. You can read the 26 claims at the end, many claims don't apply to Diablo. For example, there is no option for the player to fight an enemy alone, any encounter forces the player to summon a sub character.
And the controls for the sub character out of battle and during battle are different.
113
115
u/kaushik0408 3d ago
Obligatory fuck nintendo. Nintendo, more like Nintendont. Copyrighting mechanics is a bane for creativity and I am never gonna budge on that stance.
63
u/thegta5p 3d ago
Honestly what sucks is that Pokemon didn’t even invent this mechanic. SMT was doing it way before Pokemon was a thing. I hope this gets contested somehow.
24
u/darknight9064 3d ago
There were several games including a dragon quest game as well. Or saying you’re wrong just want to add emphasis that Nintendo was honestly late to the party.
18
u/The_Silent_Manic 3d ago
Look it up, all the mechanics that go with monster collecting and battling started in PC games in 1984 with Hack 1.0. Digital Devil Storyin 1987 also had these mechanics along with Dragon Quest Monsters in 1992.
0
u/nhSnork 3d ago
MegaTen is proverbial for collecting mons well before Pokemon, but the first DQM came out in 1998, not 1992.
22
u/bakhox 3d ago
They were just mistaken, Dragon Quest V came out in ‘92 and had a monster recruitment mechanic.
0
u/The_Silent_Manic 3d ago
Was reading another reddit thread and I think they were referring to DQV when they stated DQ Monsters. Didn't read up on DQ Monsters til after I posted.
14
u/sagevallant 3d ago
Not a lawyer, but I read the article and it looks they patented the system from Scarlet / Violent. That is to say, systems that are the typical summon battle mechanic but ALSO include the potential for an automatic battle to take place. Like when you summon the critter and it runs off to fight things on its own.
So if I understand correctly SMT / Dragon Quest Monsters wouldn't be in violation of the patent as they don't have that autobattle function, and they would not be able to add that function in future releases without risking a legal battle over the patent.
I assume Pal World has the auto battle function.
10
u/sandmaninasylum 3d ago
Even including the 'runaway battles in open world' aspect, there are still many games that predate Scarlet/Violet. SMT Imagine being one.
1
u/ThrowawayBlank2023 11h ago
The patent is specific enough that it doesnt even apply to most Pokémon games, it's wild how everyone here is falling for misinformation just because they want to be enraged.
You're totally right, this doesn't apply to DQ or SMT...
-4
u/thegta5p 3d ago
Yeah I wonder what would constitute an “autobattle function”. So if SMT made it so that demons fight each other when you summon them would that be a violation. I was looking at the gameplay of new Digimon game and it feels this may be in trouble. By the looks of it seems that when you throw something to an enemy it seems that an Digimon spawns. Now I don’t what determines a command battle but it seems that it usually does when they do that. But in other cases it seems that the battle happens automatically and you can beat the enemy without going into command battle. I know that for a patent it doesn’t have to be exactly like in the example given since it’s supposed to cover variations of the mechanic as well. I also saw that in the new Digimon you can ride your mons, so I wonder if they are in violation of that other patent as well.
2
u/The_Silent_Manic 3d ago
Hack 1.0 in 1984 is the very first game to have the mechanics for monster collecting and more.
3
→ More replies (5)8
55
u/Fiyachan 3d ago edited 2d ago
Obligatory fuck Nintendo and fuck the system for even allowing Nintendo to have claim on these patents
Looking at the patent details, none of the games listed by OP would be affected by this patent. The patent is extremely specific which is probably why they can have it.
You have to SUMMON or SPAWN the character in an open space. Sub characters who already exist in the open space aren’t affected. If you call upon the character and it comes over from elsewhere, this patent does not affect. If you enter a space and your characters are already following, not affected by the patent
If an enemy is present, the summoned character fights via player input. It specifically states ‘in a first mode’ which basically means (as my research would conclude) the player has to MANUALLY control the summon in some form or manner
If there is NOT an enemy present , the summoned character will behave automatically awaiting player command. If the summoned character immediately retreats without an enemy present, not affected by this patent
Basically, no large enough game exists other than Legends Arceus that fits in this niche. Arguably not even Palworld as Palworld doesnt completely fit the 2nd note BUT a good lawyer could make it fit
Note: the game needs to fit ALL of these notes. It cant be ‘all but’. It has to be every single niche
Edit: a lot of people are asking ‘but what if this game?’
The game needs to fit ALL conditions. That is both when encountering an enemy the game will enter first mode AND when not encountering an enemy the sub character will behave autonomously.
So it needs to:
The summon needs to be autonomous when not inside a battle. In the open world, it will be controlled by an AI and will respond to commands to the player but will otherwise behave on it’s own
If the summon (not just the player) encounters an enemy, it needs to no longer be able to behave autonomously. In the First Mode, it needs to be an ‘Object’ with no AI present
The game needs to have a clear and distinct switch between the two modes
Think like what happens when you’re running around in a game and then you encounter an enemy the whole game shifts to the combat mode. That needs to happen when the SUMMON encounters an enemy.
It needs to have both these conditions in their entirety. If you manually control the summon outside of battle then that means it’s not fulfilling the first condition. If the summon can control itself within in a battle, it’s not fulfilling the second condition. If you can freely switch between First Mode and AI driven mode, it is not fulfilling either of the conditions.
3
u/BBLKing 3d ago
The thing is some of them are the natural evolution of the genre. Maybe it can be worked by having the actual summon follow your character like in Digimon Story games when in open world from the start and not summon them, but I assume a good lawyer would be able to throw that.
It's something that it would be seen as a QoL for that kind of games in situations where you want to get an item/experience/whatever and just throw your summon to battle them easy and fast just like in Legends/SV.
3
u/Fiyachan 3d ago
Hence why the patent uses the word Spawn as well as Summon. I can technically say I ‘summoned’ my horse in Skyrim. I can’t say I spawned my horse in Skyrim. They mean completely different things
The patent in its language is EXTREMELY specific to avoid these loopholes. I genuinely don’t think Palworld can even fall in this niche because it’s not First Mode. I think this is more to stop further Palworlds from existing
Also, the Digimon Story games are extra safe because the sub characters dont interact with enemy digimon - the player does. It’s the player that initiates the battle, not the sub characters
19
u/fluke1030 3d ago
This needs to be upvoted more. People are already jumping to conclusions without even looking at the patent itself. This is more like "fuck you Palworld" patent than industry-destroying patent like Nemesis or Loading-screen minigames.
10
u/KuraiBaka 3d ago
The Nemesis system was just about that specific implementation, the real reason we don't see more of it is that more or less the entire game has to be around it.
Also Assassin's creed odyssey has a light version of it from what I heard, Origin does too but these are more like roaming minibosses.
8
u/TheHeadlessOne 3d ago
Yep, nemesis system is super cool but it's a ton of work. Everyone says they want a Nemesis system, but no one ever points to a game that really could have used one
2
u/BBLKing 3d ago
Pokémon could have use it, actually.
2
u/TheHeadlessOne 3d ago
For wild pokemon, particularly stuff like Arceus's Alphas would play well to that, no dispute there.
For trainers who tend to be used as progression obstacles it seems like it would run counter to the design of the series and punish experimentation, which is already disincentivized (though it has been increasingly patched up in later games). If anything a counter-nemesis system, where the more you beat an NPC the harder they get would be more fitting
2
2
u/GregNotGregtech 3d ago
Genuine question cuz I can't figure it out. How is this different from for example, summoning a clone of yourself in dota 2 (1) that you can freely control and do anything with (2), and otherwise does nothing if you aren't doing anything with it (3), though maybe the third one doesn't fully apply because it does nothing nothing if you aren't controlling it.
But to me this reads like "necromancers or similar are now not allowed in video games - nintendo", though I might be reading it wrong
5
u/Fiyachan 3d ago
A lot of games are saved by the ‘First Mode’ clause thats mentioned. First Mode is a derivative of ‘First person’ (but not necessarily first person camera)
Basically the clause specifically stipulates that upon encountering an enemy, your sub character will enter a ‘First Mode’. ‘First Mode’ means the sub character is no longer controlled by an AI and can only do as the player commands (whether the player is controlled by a human character or by its own AI aka ‘auto mode’).
Think like Legends Arceus. When you encounter a wild Pokemon, you enter into the turn based combat system. Your Pokemon can no longer act on its own within the battle format
→ More replies (2)2
u/GregNotGregtech 2d ago
I see, I guess it is extremely specific, though I still find being able to patent things like this to be a little silly
5
u/APhantomOfTruth 3d ago
Arguably Baldur's Gate 3 runs afoul of it, when talking about the Conjure Elemental spell. It's a little iffy on the third point, but outside of combat pathing is pretty automatic, and unless specifically decoupled summons will follow their summoners automatically. You can order them around in a controlled mode, but you need to seperate them from their summoner.
8
u/Fiyachan 3d ago
Nope, because it doesn’t enter a first mode. You can direct commands, but you’re not manually controlling it technically. It’s still being driven by an AI
First mode is a manual only input mode. The player can activate an auto mode, but that technically makes the player AI driven not the sub character.
Also, I forgot to mention it but there’s another branch when theyre summoned without an enemy that means when the sub character encounters an enemy it will activate the first mode. This does not happen in Baldurs Gate 3
The best way I can say - does it play out exactly like combat in Pokemon Legends Arceus? If not, it’s not a patent violation
→ More replies (3)1
u/Amazing_Cat8897 2d ago
"The player must be able to control the monster."
...Doesn't this exclude the very fricken game Nintendo is trying to take down? You know, a survival game where you CAN'T control any of the cool monsters, and are instead forced to control some generic asshole the entire game?
1
u/Fiyachan 21h ago
The patent isn’t in relation to Palworld, it was filed a year before Palworld released.
If I had to guess, they might have pushed it to stop Palworld, or future Palworld wannabes, from going in that direction. Or it’s just coincidental timing that the patent was granted
1
u/ThrowawayBlank2023 11h ago
This being far from being the top comment goes to show how people on Reddit don't even want real information. Just toxic ragebait and spreading misinformation because that's cooler!
Thanks for sharing this though, it's good to see that some people still have critical thinking and actually read things beyond headlines before making false statements online.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Rufus_Bojangles 3d ago
no large enough game exists other than Legends Arceus that fits in this niche
And now, none ever will. Patenting game mechanics is stupid and selfish on its face, no matter how specific you have to get.
24
u/Upstairs-Yard-2139 3d ago
Seriously. The Pokémon company is suing Palworld and these insane patents are still being issued.
From what I’ve heard it’s a custom where the assumption is the patent will never actually be enforced, but now they are.
Edit: so this is a US version of their Japanese patent.
57
15
u/bens6757 3d ago
Patents in the Japanese industry don't do anything. They aren't in place to prevent their competition from using them. There's an unspoken code of honor about that. Those patents are in place to prevent some random person from patenting it first and suing the game companies for patent infringement. Law suits in the Japanese industry over patents are extremely rare.
SNK and Namco had patents on title screens and high score displays, yet no lawsuits were made over other companies using them. Namco used to have a patent on interactive loading screens, yet while that patent was in place, Capcom made Okami, which had a loading screen mini game. No lawsuits happened.
There are only two times Nintendo was involved in a legal battle involving patents. One is the more recent and well-known lawsuit with Pocket Pair over Palworld. Something I suspect is more about the blatant pokemon design knockoffs several of the pals have, but they couldn't sue over that, so they used patent infringement instead. (Btw the money for that equates to about $30,000, which is a drop in the bucket for both companies.)
The lesser known one was a counter sue against the mobile game company COLOPL. Colopl broke the code of honor and sued Nintendo for patent infringement on one of their game mechanics. They COLOPL lost the case when it was pointed out that the control scheme for their mobile game actually knocked off Super Mario 64 DS' touch screen controls. Forcing COLOPL to change the game's controls and pay Nintendo for patent infringement.
8
u/an-actual-communism 3d ago edited 3d ago
Patents can be licensed out to third parties. In fact, this is one of the main reasons people acquire patents in the first place--not to keep anyone else from using the invention, but to make sure they get credit when other people do use it. I don't know the actual specific cases, but SNK and Namco could easily have been collecting license fees from every publisher who had a title screen and a high score display in their game until the patents expired.
4
u/manimateus 3d ago
Yea it's funny seeing this outrage when so many people don't understand that every Japanese company patents the hell out of everything, but rarely enforces it
1
u/BoltOfBlazingGold 2d ago
The other day I was just trying to read more about that case and couldn't find, even googling in Japanese, anything about Colopl FAFO-ing, and only about the lawsuit. Do you know if there's somewhere to see reports?
3
u/bens6757 2d ago
The YouTube channel Thomas Games Docs has a video on the whole lawsuit. https://youtu.be/cbH9-lzx4LY?si=hJNdtG-FBYXwdvjK
1
u/BoltOfBlazingGold 2d ago
Thanks to you, I could find the source (auto translation seems to be quite good):
5
u/Alunga 2d ago
No, Nintendo wasn't granted a patent for summoning mechanics. Nintendo was granted a patent for the Pokemon Legends ZA gameplay. Read the patent in the article you posted. It needs to fulfill all six steps, and out of all the JRPGs that exist, none come close to fulfilling that. So no, SMT, Persona and Digimon aren't affected by this, unless they want to rip off Legends in particular. Digimon World gameplay might be similar, but it's not turn based nor can you capture Digimon. Not even Palworld is infringing here since you fight together with your Pals in real time.
12
u/Morgan_Danwell 3d ago
Patent for summoning mechanics
I mean this looks like a patent for some certain hyper-specific summoning mechanic, no? So it isn’t really ”OMG NOW GAMES CANT HAVE SUMMON MECHANICS OR NINTENDO SUES!!!” situation..
Although it is still dumb as hell that it is even allowed to patent such a things anyways🤷
1
u/Only-Refrigerator-52 2d ago
Yeah I don't see this affecting smt or persona. Possibly could affect a Digimon game though? Depends on how it's implemented.
22
u/akaciparaci 3d ago
next nintendo will patent jumping
then hitting blocks for items
14
4
u/koreawut 3d ago
From my understanding, this patent covers:
If there is a piece of software.
If that software allows a player to control a type of creature
If that software allows the player to cause a secondary/sub character or 'summoned' creature to appear
If that character/creature appears where another character is, or isn't
If that new creature/character attacks with or without input from the player
So, from my not-a-lawyer understanding, that's pretty danged every summoning in nearly any game.
Please ELI5.
16
u/Fiyachan 3d ago edited 3d ago
It needs to be ALL of the notes you made. If it doesn’t fit all of them, it cant work. Think like you’re making a recipe. If you’re missing a core ingredient, you can’t make the recipe - same thing here. If you don’t have all the notes, they can’t sue (on grounds of patent stealing)
Sub character has to be spawned (as opposed to summoned) or ‘created’ in an open space. A game like Skyrim where you call your horse, you’re not spawning it, you’re calling it to your position. It already theoretically exists in your space
Sub character has to be controlled by the player if it encounters an enemy. It has to be first mode which is a manual battle mode. Summons like in WoW dont follow this format - you never manually control the summon beyond an additional command.
If an enemy doesn’t exist in the space, the sub character will behave automatically until it encounters an enemy or a player input command
So think something EXACTLY like how Pokemon Legends plays out
-4
21
u/Crossbell0527 3d ago
There are over a dozen comments and not ONE of these children has read any details about the patent. It's, like, hyper specific. It will affect NOBODY except for phonies deliberately trying to full-on copy the exact style used in the most recent Pokémon games.
11
u/dxzxg 3d ago
Even if its hyper specifc, these kinds of patents are still terrible.
4
u/Crossbell0527 3d ago
I agree, which is why it's important to actually be knowledgeable when you object to something. The extreme ignorance spouted by these commenters weakens their position.
5
u/Upstairs-Yard-2139 3d ago
It’s the same patent their using to try to shutdown Palworld, but in America.
-6
u/DevilAdvocateVeles 3d ago
The fact that you don’t even know why that changes nothing, and so conclude that no one has read it when oother comments are referencing it…
6
-9
u/Tlux0 3d ago
Is it specific? I read the article, didn’t seem specific to me?
7
u/Crossbell0527 3d ago
Don't read the article, read the PATENT. It isn't a patent on the concept of summoning. It is a patent on a very particular summoning mechanic.
-1
8
11
u/KarmaWalker 3d ago
Yeah, I'm never buyin' a Switch 2. They've gone insane.
8
3d ago edited 3d ago
This was submitted years ago, much before switch 2. its also nothing new from nintendo who have patents since the 90s.
2
8
0
1
1
u/the_bighi 2d ago
I want a game in which I summon mechanics!
Maybe there are many broken cars and I can't fix all of them myself.
1
1
u/Harkonnen985 1d ago
So what EXACTLY is this patent about?
What CAN'T other companies do now in their games?
"Summoning mechanics" is incredibly vague.
-1
u/Valkyrie3LHS 3d ago
Why the drama bait? Nintendo isn't even going to glance at SMT. Persona, or Digimon in regards to the patent. You are literally upset at a fictional scenario in your head when you don't even seem to understand the patent.
9
u/adingdingdiiing 3d ago
That's usually how it goes these days. There's a narrative in their heads that's making them upset.😅
0
1
u/Upstairs-Yard-2139 3d ago
Palworld lawsuit has everyone scared, though an American patent would be used against American companies.
→ More replies (1)-6
u/sagevallant 3d ago
It's the reverse, though. Now SMT, Persona, Digimon, and other such summoning games can't implement a system where the summons fight automatically. Limiting the directions in which all other series can grow. Patenting styles of game play is never good for the industry or the customer.
RIP Nemesis System, you could've been in so many games by now instead of being killed by corporate greed twice over. First by being locked down to WB, then by microtransaction laden bullshit killing the Shadow of Mordor / War series.
5
1
u/BoltOfBlazingGold 2d ago
This is outright false as they rarely, if ever, go after other developers when their patents are "violated".
Don't believe me? Watch this video (use translated subs) about a different company trying to pull this move and getting stopped by guess who:
0
u/Khalith 3d ago
I feel like courts really don’t like it when a party tries to manufacture jurisdiction or evidence after the fact just to gain an advantage. Because that is exactly what this comes across as to me.
They’re filing or amending patents after competition arises, then pointing at those patents as if they “prove” novelty or ownership of a mechanic that’s been around forever. Absolutely ridiculous.
0
1
1
u/SpinstrikerPlayz 2d ago
Atlus/Sega won't stand for it. Atlus did creature summoning with Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei 9-10 years before Pokemon Red and Blue came out. This is just some bs strongarming by Nintendo and old boomers who don't know anything.
-6
u/fibal81080 3d ago edited 2d ago
nin still can't beat palworld that nobody cares about anymore
early access goons triggered lol
7
u/burritoman88 3d ago
I was curious how it’s doing on twitch, 388 viewers currently.
1
u/thegta5p 3d ago
I can’t believe that this indie game is making Nintendo go all nuclear. A few months back Palworld had to remove their throwing sphere animation because of a lawsuit from Nintendo. This has to be bullying behavior.
1
1
u/Naghtsieger 3d ago
Man, Nintendo is even capable of going nuclear on Billy Age 8 because he did a (bad) drawing of Mario and Luigi and shared it with his grand mother on facebook.
1
u/Haru17 3d ago edited 3d ago
So they basically patented summoning a character on top of another character triggering a battle and the let’s go mechanic from SV. Cool. Can’t see this nonsense holding up when people easily demonstrate that other games have been doing this for years and years and it’s not at all a new mechanic.
0
0
u/IamZeus11 3d ago
How is that possible when they literally ripped the idea off of dragon quest ? Hell they even stole half the designs from dragon quest !! wtf?
0
u/WillingAct1082 3d ago
So does that mean final fantasy is violating that patent then? Sony needs to join the lawsuit immediately and tell Nintendo to “fuck off”.
0
-2
-1
-5
-1
-1
0
0
u/LeoBocchi 3d ago
Just to be clear, this will obviously not affect franchises like Persona, SMT and Final Fantasy, because nintendo will not go against some of their biggest partners, BUT every other JRPG developer that uses a summoning system will have to flip a coin to not get a lawsuit
0
0
u/ExchangeOk8375 2d ago
Even the elder scrolls and baldurs gate style summoning could be affected by this
0
u/RoastMasterShawn 2d ago
I hate this kind of stuff. It limits competition and innovation. Copying and leapfrogging is how we get better games. I'm still mad about the nemesis system being locked down and not being used. Imagine if CDPR was able to use that in Cyberpunk (or the next Witcher)?
That being said, this patent is specific enough where Persona, Digimon, Monster Rancher etc. aren't violating this.
0
u/DeepAbyssal 1d ago
I hope SE ready to lawyer up considering Beast Tamer <- is a summoning mechanic and Scholar and Summoner lol and Atlas Persona series eat your fucking heart out.
2
u/WingingItLoosely 1d ago
Not actually what the patent would hit, please actually read it before making dumb statements.
1
237
u/Aviaxl 3d ago edited 3d ago
Reminds me of the Nemesis system being patented and FFX sphere grid. It definitely sucks especially with so many indies coming out too but not surprised. I wonder companies can fight it though since I feel like this mechanic isn’t new.
Edit: read it in full and they need to fulfill all 6 steps to be sued, tbh 5 since we’re talking about video games and that meets the first requirement, so if anybody doesn’t want to get sued seems like they’ll have to get creative.