this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
112 points (98.3% liked)

Games

16743 readers
764 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 84 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

This shit is somewhat agreeable now, because Pal World is so similar, but once this door is opened, it's never going to let developers have the freedom to invent and innovate, because crusty old bullies want to use the legal system to punish anyone that dares resemble 2-3 decade old game mechanics.

Should platformer games pay royalties to Nintendo for having the first character to jump twice it's height?

Video game companies rent seeking for "game mechanics patents" on old shit is just ironically anti fun.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's also creating a patent minefield that stifles any game development by people who can't afford the lawyers necessary to navigate it.

[–] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

That's kinda what I meant, and its something I'm rather worried about.

load more comments (2 replies)