Sure, nobody owns the artstyle. Nobody owns the idea of collecting animals. Not suggesting they do.
But you get enough things the same, lawyers will start sniffing around.
Tem Tem is pretty much Pokemon, far closer in gameplay than Palworld tbh, but they sensibly made it look different, didn’t try to ride the coattails of a lawyer-happy multi-billion dollar corporation, so avoided all this drama and nonsense. Digimon and Yo-kai Watch, again, very games. Different enough marketing that they didn’t get sued.
Sony don’t own metal dinosaurs or post apocalyptic scenarios (although they make so many of the latter they might as well), but when Tencent did this:
… just what do you expect their lawyers to do? Not get paid?
The HZD example is way different. Company wanted to make a Horizon game, had the go-ahead, presented a demo, deal was terminated, then they made a knock-off anyway.
Palworld is clearly both a parody and in a completely different genre.
Sure, nobody owns the artstyle. Nobody owns the idea of collecting animals. Not suggesting they do.
But you get enough things the same, lawyers will start sniffing around.
Tem Tem is pretty much Pokemon, far closer in gameplay than Palworld tbh, but they sensibly made it look different, didn’t try to ride the coattails of a lawyer-happy multi-billion dollar corporation, so avoided all this drama and nonsense. Digimon and Yo-kai Watch, again, very games. Different enough marketing that they didn’t get sued.
Sony don’t own metal dinosaurs or post apocalyptic scenarios (although they make so many of the latter they might as well), but when Tencent did this:
… just what do you expect their lawyers to do? Not get paid?
The HZD example is way different. Company wanted to make a Horizon game, had the go-ahead, presented a demo, deal was terminated, then they made a knock-off anyway.
Palworld is clearly both a parody and in a completely different genre.