Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit
-
With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it's ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.
-
With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.
How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it's ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.
Why is there nothing in place to punish Ninendo for doing shit like this?
Patent law is rigged. Legal monopolies shouldn't exist.
-
Why is there nothing in place to punish Ninendo for doing shit like this?
Patent law is rigged. Legal monopolies shouldn't exist.
Legal monopolies shouldn’t exist.
I agree IP law is messed up, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit.
Having a temporary, legal monopoly on something that requires a lot of R&D and not much production cost (say, a novel or new kind of asphalt) allows the creator to make back their R&D costs before competitors come out with cheaper alternatives. Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
We need shorter durations and more scrutiny on scope. Also, patents should generally not apply to software.
-
Legal monopolies shouldn’t exist.
I agree IP law is messed up, but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit.
Having a temporary, legal monopoly on something that requires a lot of R&D and not much production cost (say, a novel or new kind of asphalt) allows the creator to make back their R&D costs before competitors come out with cheaper alternatives. Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
We need shorter durations and more scrutiny on scope. Also, patents should generally not apply to software.
that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
As an incentive structure for corporations and "people" purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
-
that doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have merit.
As an incentive structure for corporations and "people" purely motivated by avarice, sure.
Most people naturally want to create and contribute as long as their needs and most basic wants are met. A monopoly as an incentive is not necessary.
Without that protection, companies would be less likely to invest in R&D.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter. Incentives are only one half of the equation. Its really all about leverage.
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you're making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there's no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.
I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.
-
There are many ways to motivate corporations to do R&D outside of offering them a monopoly on a silver platter
The main alternative is offering them a subsidy on a silver platter, but then you're making everyone pay for that R&D, not just the customers who want whatever that product is, and there's no protection against IP theft unless the government owns and enforces the patents or something abroad.
I personally prefer the IP law approach, but I think it needs significant reforms, both in duration and the approval process.
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can't afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That's still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
-
With a monopoly, you may very well be making everyone pay for the increased price gouge that comes with monopolies. Not just the customer of that particular product. It depends on the nature of the product.
If it is a component of a more common device or product, basically everyone ends up paying more (HDMI comes to mind). If its an innovation relating to a basic need and gets integrated with the majority of services, basically everyone ends up paying more. If its something that has external implications on the market or wider world that creates inefficiencies, then people functionally make less money because effect people pay more and thus long term this harms spending on a variety of products. If people can't afford the price gouge and continue using less effective products (assuming they are even available) they likely long term spend more money to make up for the inefficiencies from that.
Monopolies damage things beyond the product that gets monopolized and merely concentrates wealth.
Regardless a subsidy is not the only alternative. That's still thinking in terms of carrot, and you are forgetting the stick. You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations based on revenue/profits just as much as you with the punishment of potentially being fined/taxed more.
But outside of that, there is also government contracts. That is, a single payer, (monopsony) generally can get fantastic results out of competing firms. Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
Not all monopolies are created equal. We're talking about IP protections, not general monopolies, meaning these are new products, not some existing necessity. IP law on its own can't kill existing products.
An author having exclusive rights to a work doesn't prevent other authors from making their own works. A pharmaceutical company having exclusive rights to a medication doesn't prevent other pharmaceutical companies from making competing medications. Likewise for video games and whatnot.
The problems with Palworld have little to do with IP law as a concept but with how broad the protection of patents is. IMO, video game mechanics shouldn't be patentable, and companies should be limited to copyright protections for their IP. But IP protection is still important as a concept so creators don't get screwed and customers don't get defrauded.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that's not going to be abused/scare away companies.
Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
It's also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
-
Not all monopolies are created equal. We're talking about IP protections, not general monopolies, meaning these are new products, not some existing necessity. IP law on its own can't kill existing products.
An author having exclusive rights to a work doesn't prevent other authors from making their own works. A pharmaceutical company having exclusive rights to a medication doesn't prevent other pharmaceutical companies from making competing medications. Likewise for video games and whatnot.
The problems with Palworld have little to do with IP law as a concept but with how broad the protection of patents is. IMO, video game mechanics shouldn't be patentable, and companies should be limited to copyright protections for their IP. But IP protection is still important as a concept so creators don't get screwed and customers don't get defrauded.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that's not going to be abused/scare away companies.
Its largely a major reason why the American Military has historically benefited from such significant technological advancements for nearly a century now.
It's also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
Only have access to this account during work, so late reply.
We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies
It doesn't matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused
You'd need to elaborate I'm not clear what you mean by this.
scare away companies
There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don't have to suck a corporation's dick to keep their productivity.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
-
Only have access to this account during work, so late reply.
We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies
It doesn't matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused
You'd need to elaborate I'm not clear what you mean by this.
scare away companies
There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don't have to suck a corporation's dick to keep their productivity.
It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
A few ways:
- the term "R&D" can be pretty broad, so it's unlikely to have the effect you're thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is "R&D" whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse
- companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don't exist
- enforcement could be selective to target companies that don't "bend the knee" - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it's not practical
force
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for
Sure, but they're getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn't rigged to be anti-competitive.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don't think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn't reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don't think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don't think it's universally a good option.
-
You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations
Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.
You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.
A few ways:
- the term "R&D" can be pretty broad, so it's unlikely to have the effect you're thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is "R&D" whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse
- companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don't exist
- enforcement could be selective to target companies that don't "bend the knee" - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it's not practical
force
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for
Sure, but they're getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn't rigged to be anti-competitive.
Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don't think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn't reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don't think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don't think it's universally a good option.
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
So you'd rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.
I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I'll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
I think that this is pure conjecture. Going "full competitive" would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you'd see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.
Again, it always boils down to leverage.
-
Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.
So you'd rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.
I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I'll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.
Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.
They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.
I think that this is pure conjecture. Going "full competitive" would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you'd see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.
I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).
To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.
To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.
Again, it always boils down to leverage.
So you’d rather give power to corporations.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments. I firmly believe giving more power to governments results in more monopolies, generally speaking, because it creates an opportunity for the larger players to lobby for ways to create barriers to competition.
That's a pretty broad statement though, and there are certainly cases where I would prefer the government to step in.
monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized
I don't think that's true. I think you're making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don't think that's the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
That's quite similar to the current military industrial complex, the military is the only purchaser of these goods, so the suppliers can largely set their prices. A monopsony means the value of making a deal is massive for a company because they get access to a massive market, which also means the value of lobbying to get that deal is also high.
So I really don't trust that a single payer system would actually work in the US to reduce total healthcare costs, it'll just hide it. If we want to actually cut healthcare costs, we need to fix a number of things, such as:
- malpractice suits - providers need expensive insurance plans and hesitate to provide certain types of care (i.e. need more tests even though they're very confident in their diagnosis)
- pharmaceutical and medical device patent system, and subsequent lobbying to set regulations to hedge against competition
- backroom deals between insurance companies and care providers where both sides get a "win" (provider inflates prices so insurance rep can report that they're getting a deal by getting a discount)
- whatever is causing ambulances to be super expensive
The problems are vast and I think single payer would likely just sweep them under the rug. We either need socialized healthcare or maximum transparency, single payer would just be a disappointment.
-
So you’d rather give power to corporations.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments. I firmly believe giving more power to governments results in more monopolies, generally speaking, because it creates an opportunity for the larger players to lobby for ways to create barriers to competition.
That's a pretty broad statement though, and there are certainly cases where I would prefer the government to step in.
monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized
I don't think that's true. I think you're making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don't think that's the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
That's quite similar to the current military industrial complex, the military is the only purchaser of these goods, so the suppliers can largely set their prices. A monopsony means the value of making a deal is massive for a company because they get access to a massive market, which also means the value of lobbying to get that deal is also high.
So I really don't trust that a single payer system would actually work in the US to reduce total healthcare costs, it'll just hide it. If we want to actually cut healthcare costs, we need to fix a number of things, such as:
- malpractice suits - providers need expensive insurance plans and hesitate to provide certain types of care (i.e. need more tests even though they're very confident in their diagnosis)
- pharmaceutical and medical device patent system, and subsequent lobbying to set regulations to hedge against competition
- backroom deals between insurance companies and care providers where both sides get a "win" (provider inflates prices so insurance rep can report that they're getting a deal by getting a discount)
- whatever is causing ambulances to be super expensive
The problems are vast and I think single payer would likely just sweep them under the rug. We either need socialized healthcare or maximum transparency, single payer would just be a disappointment.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it's ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it'll ever happen again.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
Do you think a more direct "medical patient union" would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
socialized healthcare
I mean, I'd prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).
-
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate. And capital interests fight tooth and nail against large monopolies being split back up. Its more or less a miracle that it's ever happened at all and it would be naive to think it'll ever happen again.
If the market is sufficiently competitive, yes, I trust corporations more than governments.
I don’t think that’s true. I think you’re making an assumption that the payer has an incentive to reduce costs, but I really don’t think that’s the case. What they do have is a lot of power over pricing, and while that could be used to force producers to reduce costs, it can also be used to shift costs onto taxpayers in exchange for favors from the companies providing the services.
Do you think a more direct "medical patient union" would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
socialized healthcare
I mean, I'd prefer socialized healthcare over single payer. Single payer for me is merely an acceptable middle ground. As would having a proper public option next to private care (though admittedly that would slowly erode from lobbying).
Competition naturally degrades over time as companies go out of business and consolidate.
And it naturally improves over time as companies challenge established players and "distupt" the market. As long as the barrier to entry remains sufficiently low, there's no reason for a net degradation in competition.
Large companies tend to become less efficient. Yes, they have economies of scale, but they tend to scare away innovators, so they switch to lobbying to maintain their edge.
The correct approach IMO is to counter the lobbying efforts of large orgs, and that means stripping governments of a lot of their power. Regulations tend to result in more monopolies, requiring antitrust to fix, and as you noted, that's extremely rare.
Do you think a more direct “medical patient union” would work? Skipping a government intermediary?
Yeah, that can work. I'm thinking of having your primary care orovider offer your "insurance" policy, and they'd be on the hook to fund any procedures you need. So they have an incentive to keep you healthy, and that agreement could be a legal obligation that the doctor is doing their best to keep you healthy.
I do think we should socialize emergency services though. If a paramedic determines you need an ambulance ride, that should be free.
I’d prefer socialized healthcare over single payer
I prefer privatized care with transparency in pricing across the board, shortened patent durations, and some government assistance for the poor. But failing that, socialized care is probably the next best. Anything in the middle just breeds corruption.
