@yosp already working to get Palworld onto PlayStation

[Dr Bass]

To be fair everyone said Genshin was a BOTW knock off and it had zero impact. That Fenyx rising game was the same - no issue.

This is just my personal feeling, but there is a difference between being "inspired by" or looking like they are trying to be in the same genre, vs. just ripping off the look and feel lock stock and barrel. It's sorta like how when a game like Crash Team Racing comes out, we all know it's supposed to be a Mario Kart type game. But that's no big deal because it's simply a genre, and they are using their own designs and IP.

These look almost like color swaps of Pokemon. It just doesn't fall into the same bucket IMO. And that Craftopia looks way more like a straight BotW knockoff than something like Fenyx, which looked like a BotW game setup, with their own designs.

P.S. Great avatar choice.

 

[peter42O]

I don't think Splatoon and Foamstars or whatever it's called are even in the same category as the designs in this game and Pokemon. It's kind of embarrassing.

This is not the kind of thing MS should want to be known for as a platform, hence "locking it down" would be a really stupid idea.

I don't see any issue with Palworld or locking it down. If anything, people are just bitching about it because it looks like it's going to be a huge success and in some ways is what Pokemon should have already become but didn't.

 

[Nimrota]

This is just my personal feeling, but there is a difference between being "inspired by" or looking like they are trying to be in the same genre, vs. just ripping off the look and feel lock stock and barrel. It's sorta like how when a game like Crash Team Racing comes out, we all know it's supposed to be a Mario Kart type game. But that's no big deal because it's simply a genre, and they are using their own designs and IP.

These look almost like color swaps of Pokemon. It just doesn't fall into the same bucket IMO. And that Craftopia looks way more like a straight BotW knockoff than something like Fenyx, which looked like a BotW game setup, with their own designs.

P.S. Great avatar choice.

Sure I agree with your general point. What I mean more was historically we do see these kinds of arguments levied against games but in the long run they peter out. I disagree less that it's a colour swap (but my opinion on this may change) but I think a good portion of claims that there is plagiarism won't be substantiated over the long term. Certainly there is similarity between Palworld's Pengullet and Pokemon's Piplup, but how much variation can there be in "Ice Penguin" design? I think this is what the Arkane(?) dev was saying about the range of design and why this is less of an issue than some are making. The element I think is most copied directly is the pokeball/throwing pokeball and capturing mechanic because that is fairly lifted straight from Pokemon, even the capture noises are similar.

And thanks, FF12 is perhaps my favourite game of all time. Very underappreciated.

 

[Nimrota]

I don't see any issue with Palworld or locking it down. If anything, people are just bitching about it because it looks like it's going to be a huge success and in some ways is what Pokemon should have already become but didn't.

By "locking it down" you mean "pay for a popular 3rd party product we've not helped develop or support be denied to Playstation owners" right?

 

[peter42O]

By "locking it down" you mean "pay for a popular 3rd party product we've not helped develop or support be denied to Playstation owners" right?

Yeah. Sony has locked down games by other publishers that they don't own, don't fund and never will but no one seems to have a problem with that. Sony took away Stellar Blade and no one seems to mention that right? ONLY when it's Microsoft, it's somehow bad but when it's Sony, it's the greatest thing ever.

As for Palworld itself, Sony got Genshin and Honkai and despite what anyone says, Sony locked them down which is what they should have done. Microsoft could use a few of these games so locking down Palworld when they have it first like Sony with the above two games, they should lock it down.

 

[Nimrota]

One part of the plagiarism claims that undermines credibility imo is including Wooloo (sheep pokemon) as something that has been copied. If you look at Wooloo's design, you'll see it's pretty basic. It's literally just a sheep with its face coming out of the fur and some braids. Not much in the way of design. If you look up "sheep drawing" on Google images, without scrolling far you'll see plenty that are pretty much just sheep with face coming out of fur (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5). Comparing that to Lamball (example 2 and example 3) from Palworld, it's just another sheep with it's face coming out of its fur. It's two legged though. It seems ridiculous to claim that a very basic sheep is somehow plagiarism because....basic sheep features...have been copied. The Lucario like Pal does look pretty suspect, can't deny that, I just mean that the hysterical overreaction undermines the overall claim.

 

[Nimrota]

Yeah. Sony has locked down games by other publishers that they don't own, don't fund and never will but no one seems to have a problem with that. Sony took away Stellar Blade and no one seems to mention that right? ONLY when it's Microsoft, it's somehow bad but when it's Sony, it's the greatest thing ever.

As for Palworld itself, Sony got Genshin and Honkai and despite what anyone says, Sony locked them down which is what they should have done. Microsoft could use a few of these games so locking down Palworld when they have it first like Sony with the above two games, they should lock it down.

Provide some evidence of the claim here. Because I saw the same argument about FF16 and it took a while to clear up that it was wrong because Sony provided development resources to optimise FF16. It's wrong in this case because the game is released and you're trying to retroactively enforce exclusivity due to it's popularity. I have no issue with deals for exclusive titles being worked on as part of development or support for a studio, I have an issue with you saying because of it's success it needs to be denied to certain players to boost the success of a platform after it's success. Such typical Xbox garbage that instead of developing anything of value that people might want to purchase they try to buy games out to deny others access.

 

[ultimateFF]

Yeah. Sony has locked down games by other publishers that they don't own, don't fund and never will but no one seems to have a problem with that. Sony took away Stellar Blade and no one seems to mention that right? ONLY when it's Microsoft, it's somehow bad but when it's Sony, it's the greatest thing ever.

As for Palworld itself, Sony got Genshin and Honkai and despite what anyone says, Sony locked them down which is what they should have done. Microsoft could use a few of these games so locking down Palworld when they have it first like Sony with the above two games, they should lock it down.

That's because everyone loves Playstation and no one like xbotz, you moron .

 

[peter42O]

Provide some evidence of the claim here. Because I saw the same argument about FF16 and it took a while to clear up that it was wrong because Sony provided development resources to optimise FF16. It's wrong in this case because the game is released and you're trying to retroactively enforce exclusivity due to it's popularity. I have no issue with deals for exclusive titles being worked on as part of development or support for a studio, I have an issue with you saying because of it's success it needs to be denied to certain players to boost the success of a platform after it's success. Such typical Xbox garbage that instead of developing anything of value that people might want to purchase they try to buy games out to deny others access.

It has nothing to do with the success of Palworld. Has more to do with Microsoft not having these games and they should have locked it down before it released and if they didn't, they should in my opinion. As for Genshin/Honkai, they've been on Sony's events and are free to play. What other reason would there be to not port them to Xbox if not for Sony locking them down? As free to play games, they should be everywhere because why wouldn't you put them everywhere unless a company is paying you not to?

Sony paid for timed exclusivity with FF XVI. Sony does this in order to get you into their eco-system. Doesn't matter what else they provide. They don't own these games. They don't publish them and they're not paying for their development whatsoever. Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything in regards to paying for exclusivity.

Personally, I don't have any issues with what Sony or Microsoft does. I look at it in a very simple way - it's business and both companies are going to do with what they believe is best for their business. I personally prefer acquisitions because after Xbox One and Xbox 360, I would prefer Microsoft to own studios and their IP's so they can do what they want with them as opposed to being reliant and dependent on third party development studios saying yes to a potential sequel. For example, I wanted a Ryse 2 but it's owned by Crytek and Microsoft couldn't reach a deal with them for the sequel so doing these deals serve no long term gain or purpose and I personally lose out on a sequel that I wanted.

I don't like timed exclusivity because I see it as a waste of money. Either lock it down fully or don't bother. Stalker 2 for example is a 3 month timed console exclusive. I don't even see the point in that. Either lock it down or don't bother.

I will say that if I have to choose between timed exclusivity OR day one Game Pass, you guys can have the game because me paying $70 just for getting the game sooner doesn't benefit me as a consumer or as a gamer but day one on Game Pass does. However, if Microsoft owns the studio/IP, then I get both - full console exclusivity and day one on Game Pass.

Paying for games that you've picked up while being shopped (like Contraband for Microsoft or Ronin for Sony for example) and publishing them is perfectly fine. No issue whatsoever with this scenario.

 

[Nimrota]

It has nothing to do with the success of Palworld. Has more to do with Microsoft not having these games and they should have locked it down before it released and if they didn't, they should in my opinion. As for Genshin/Honkai, they've been on Sony's events and are free to play. What other reason would there be to not port them to Xbox if not for Sony locking them down? As free to play games, they should be everywhere because why wouldn't you put them everywhere unless a company is paying you not to?

Sony paid for timed exclusivity with FF XVI. Sony does this in order to get you into their eco-system. Doesn't matter what else they provide. They don't own these games. They don't publish them and they're not paying for their development whatsoever. Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything in regards to paying for exclusivity.

Personally, I don't have any issues with what Sony or Microsoft does. I look at it in a very simple way - it's business and both companies are going to do with what they believe is best for their business. I personally prefer acquisitions because after Xbox One and Xbox 360, I would prefer Microsoft to own studios and their IP's so they can do what they want with them as opposed to being reliant and dependent on third party development studios saying yes to a potential sequel. For example, I wanted a Ryse 2 but it's owned by Crytek and Microsoft couldn't reach a deal with them for the sequel so doing these deals serve no long term gain or purpose and I personally lose out on a sequel that I wanted.

I don't like timed exclusivity because I see it as a waste of money. Either lock it down fully or don't bother. Stalker 2 for example is a 3 month timed console exclusive. I don't even see the point in that. Either lock it down or don't bother.

I will say that if I have to choose between timed exclusivity OR day one Game Pass, you guys can have the game because me paying $70 just for getting the game sooner doesn't benefit me as a consumer or as a gamer but day one on Game Pass does. However, if Microsoft owns the studio/IP, then I get both - full console exclusivity and day one on Game Pass.

Paying for games that you've picked up while being shopped (like Contraband for Microsoft or Ronin for Sony for example) and publishing them is perfectly fine. No issue whatsoever with this scenario.

If it has nothing to do with the success of Palworld, why weren't you calling for this game to be exclusive before it released? They SHOULD have you say, but why? Because it is now successful?

As for FF16, yes it does matter what else they provide because you claimed that Sony "don't fund" 3rd party exclusives. We know for a fact they fund them by providing additional resources (Xbox did this for Starfield by going company wide for testing, and I believe with Redfall by lending extra programmers to Arkane) for development and covering a portion of marketing costs. When you have the developers of FF16 saying Sony's support with optimisation allowed them to get the game working as they wanted for the audinece, it's strange to argue they're "not paying for their development" when they clearly are providing financial support via labour, expertise, marketing, etc. All those things cost money. That is financial support. "Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything" is you admitting your previous claim is a complete lie. You cannot even get your story right in a single paragraph.

Now as to your business argument. Sure, "both companies are going to do what they believe is best for their business", if so why are you trying to argue that "locking down" a now extremely popular game isn't about denying that game to Playstation and forcing users onto Xbox platforms? It's hard to argue this good faith I just want Xbox to support devs position while also arguing the company should do whatever it can to make a sale. Again, you cannot keep this argument straight. There isn't any need to be deceitful, everyone here can tell your Xbox-bias so why try to hide it? Just say "Ensuring this game doesn't go on Playstation is a win for Xbox and I support that." Much easier than all the deflection to appear neutral.

Timed exclusives are whatever. From an objective standpoint they're healthy since exclusivity helps push people to a platform based on attachment to a franchise but has no long lasting impact on accessibility to the game.

Your comment on not wanting to pay $70 for a game is why people prefer to work with Sony. How much money has Palworld lost by being free on GP? If it released at it's regular price on PS it would have helped the devs, so devs prefer working where they get paid and cheap people like you get pushed into Welfarepass. Arguing that it doesn't benefit you to buy a product at full price as a consumer is so economically wrongheaded it's truly bizarre. Sure, price has an impact on when a consumer wants to jump into the market, but your argument appears to be you shouldn't ever have to pay money for a product since it being free is more preferrable. You're welcome to be a cheapskate all you want, but the foundational transactional relationship of paying for a product is how sales work. If you don't want to pay you're on the same page as anyone who pirates games with zero intent to purchase, you are irrelevant as a consumer and businesses will no longer care because you're useless. That's the reality of "do[ing] what they believe is best for their business." I get more for less is never going to be a useful argument for exclusivity because the adverserial relationship of exclusivity is zero sum. Again, it goes back to as I said, you simply want this game to be on Xbox because it's popular and you don't want it on Playstation. It's already on Game Pass, you already recieved it for free, so why does it need to be exclusive? Well, as I've just said, because it's popular and you don't want others to enjoy it. There isn't anything else to it.

 

[ultimateFF]

If it has nothing to do with the success of Palworld, why weren't you calling for this game to be exclusive before it released? They SHOULD have you say, but why? Because it is now successful?

As for FF16, yes it does matter what else they provide because you claimed that Sony "don't fund" 3rd party exclusives. We know for a fact they fund them by providing additional resources (Xbox did this for Starfield by going company wide for testing, and I believe with Redfall by lending extra programmers to Arkane) for development and covering a portion of marketing costs. When you have the developers of FF16 saying Sony's support with optimisation allowed them to get the game working as they wanted for the audinece, it's strange to argue they're "not paying for their development" when they clearly are providing financial support via labour, expertise, marketing, etc. All those things cost money. That is financial support. "Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything" is you admitting your previous claim is a complete lie. You cannot even get your story right in a single paragraph.

Now as to your business argument. Sure, "both companies are going to do what they believe is best for their business", if so why are you trying to argue that "locking down" a now extremely popular game isn't about denying that game to Playstation and forcing users onto Xbox platforms? It's hard to argue this good faith I just want Xbox to support devs position while also arguing the company should do whatever it can to make a sale. Again, you cannot keep this argument straight. There isn't any need to be deceitful, everyone here can tell your Xbox-bias so why try to hide it? Just say "Ensuring this game doesn't go on Playstation is a win for Xbox and I support that." Much easier than all the deflection to appear neutral.

Timed exclusives are whatever. From an objective standpoint they're healthy since exclusivity helps push people to a platform based on attachment to a franchise but has no long lasting impact on accessibility to the game.

Your comment on not wanting to pay $70 for a game is why people prefer to work with Sony. How much money has Palworld lost by being free on GP? If it released at it's regular price on PS it would have helped the devs, so devs prefer working where they get paid and cheap people like you get pushed into Welfarepass. Arguing that it doesn't benefit you to buy a product at full price as a consumer is so economically wrongheaded it's truly bizarre. Sure, price has an impact on when a consumer wants to jump into the market, but your argument appears to be you shouldn't ever have to pay money for a product since it being free is more preferrable. You're welcome to be a cheapskate all you want, but the foundational transactional relationship of paying for a product is how sales work. If you don't want to pay you're on the same page as anyone who pirates games with zero intent to purchase, you are irrelevant as a consumer and businesses will no longer care because you're useless. That's the reality of "do[ing] what they believe is best for their business." I get more for less is never going to be a useful argument for exclusivity because the adverserial relationship of exclusivity is zero sum. Again, it goes back to as I said, you simply want this game to be on Xbox because it's popular and you don't want it on Playstation. It's already on Game Pass, you already recieved it for free, so why does it need to be exclusive? Well, as I've just said, because it's popular and you don't want others to enjoy it. There isn't anything else to it.

You can't just slap some logics to xbotz, please understand .

 

[GachaMadeMeBroke]

Yeah. Sony has locked down games by other publishers that they don't own, don't fund and never will but no one seems to have a problem with that. Sony took away Stellar Blade and no one seems to mention that right? ONLY when it's Microsoft, it's somehow bad but when it's Sony, it's the greatest thing ever.

As for Palworld itself, Sony got Genshin and Honkai and despite what anyone says, Sony locked them down which is what they should have done. Microsoft could use a few of these games so locking down Palworld when they have it first like Sony with the above two games, they should lock it down.

Sony is quite literally publishing Stellar Blade. And again, as mentioned before, both Xbox and Sony were in a bid for Genshin with HoYo, so that could’ve gone either way. But that’s also a consequence of MS’ own actions. Sony has been actively pushing for partnerships in Asian countries and increasing their presence there. Look at China and India Hero project. It is what it is.

I think irritation surrounding Xbox is just that they’re a company full of own goals and the expectation that they must just buy up companies and exclusives to make up for their mistakes is honestly kinda bullshit.

 

[arvfab]

Sony got Genshin and Honkai and despite what anyone says, Sony locked them down which is what they should have done

There is actually no one to blame but Microsoft for Genshin's absence on Xbox and maybe even as Xbox exclusive:

Microsoft Was Much Closer to a Genshin Exclusive Deal Than Everyone Realized -- Superpixel

According to a recent report by Reuters, Microsoft regrets missing the opportunity to have Genshin Impact on its platforms, the insider source from Microsoft claims they “spoke to miHoYo early i

www.superpixel.com

You think Sony continues to "lock" them down after what MS did to them and the success they found on PS?

 

[Bryank75]

Alright, try and settle things down a bit... Bit less of a hostile tone.

Discuss the points. Thanks.

 

[Lord Mittens]

Alright, try and settle things down a bit... Bit less of a hostile tone.

Discuss the points. Thanks.

 

[Plextorage]

Xbox consoles will end up being the same as last generation. Outsold 2 to 1 overall worldwide. The main difference is that Microsoft doesn't need the console #1 or even #2 to be massively successful and profitable. In my eyes, they have the five pillars of gaming. Console, PC, Subscription, Cloud and Mobile. Mobile alone with King and Diablo Immortals/COD mobile will give them massive revenue and profits.

2:1 is very optimistic. We're looking at close to 3:1 especially if they come out with new hardware in 2026 like is being rumored.

Ratio was around 1.5:1 by end of 2022. Now is 2:1 after PS5 outsold XBS by 3-1 in 2023. Gap will only increase

 

[arvfab]

they have the five pillars of gaming. Console, PC, Subscription, Cloud and Mobile

More like the 5 pillars of failure:

- Gamepass
- Day and date PC releases
- Phil Spencer
- Series S
- A fanbase full of bots and shills

 

[Dr Bass]

If it has nothing to do with the success of Palworld, why weren't you calling for this game to be exclusive before it released? They SHOULD have you say, but why? Because it is now successful?

As for FF16, yes it does matter what else they provide because you claimed that Sony "don't fund" 3rd party exclusives. We know for a fact they fund them by providing additional resources (Xbox did this for Starfield by going company wide for testing, and I believe with Redfall by lending extra programmers to Arkane) for development and covering a portion of marketing costs. When you have the developers of FF16 saying Sony's support with optimisation allowed them to get the game working as they wanted for the audinece, it's strange to argue they're "not paying for their development" when they clearly are providing financial support via labour, expertise, marketing, etc. All those things cost money. That is financial support. "Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything" is you admitting your previous claim is a complete lie. You cannot even get your story right in a single paragraph.

Now as to your business argument. Sure, "both companies are going to do what they believe is best for their business", if so why are you trying to argue that "locking down" a now extremely popular game isn't about denying that game to Playstation and forcing users onto Xbox platforms? It's hard to argue this good faith I just want Xbox to support devs position while also arguing the company should do whatever it can to make a sale. Again, you cannot keep this argument straight. There isn't any need to be deceitful, everyone here can tell your Xbox-bias so why try to hide it? Just say "Ensuring this game doesn't go on Playstation is a win for Xbox and I support that." Much easier than all the deflection to appear neutral.

Timed exclusives are whatever. From an objective standpoint they're healthy since exclusivity helps push people to a platform based on attachment to a franchise but has no long lasting impact on accessibility to the game.

Your comment on not wanting to pay $70 for a game is why people prefer to work with Sony. How much money has Palworld lost by being free on GP? If it released at it's regular price on PS it would have helped the devs, so devs prefer working where they get paid and cheap people like you get pushed into Welfarepass. Arguing that it doesn't benefit you to buy a product at full price as a consumer is so economically wrongheaded it's truly bizarre. Sure, price has an impact on when a consumer wants to jump into the market, but your argument appears to be you shouldn't ever have to pay money for a product since it being free is more preferrable. You're welcome to be a cheapskate all you want, but the foundational transactional relationship of paying for a product is how sales work. If you don't want to pay you're on the same page as anyone who pirates games with zero intent to purchase, you are irrelevant as a consumer and businesses will no longer care because you're useless. That's the reality of "do[ing] what they believe is best for their business." I get more for less is never going to be a useful argument for exclusivity because the adverserial relationship of exclusivity is zero sum. Again, it goes back to as I said, you simply want this game to be on Xbox because it's popular and you don't want it on Playstation. It's already on Game Pass, you already recieved it for free, so why does it need to be exclusive? Well, as I've just said, because it's popular and you don't want others to enjoy it. There isn't anything else to it.

I like your style.

 

[Vertigo]

 

[Swift_Star]

they have the five pillars of gaming. Console, PC, Subscription, Cloud and Mobile.

And they’re failing at all five of them