Palworld confirms ‘disappointing’ game changes forced by Pokémon lawsuit | VGC
www.videogameschronicle.com
Palworld is patching out various features related to Nintendo’s 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.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • HalfSalesman@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        53 minutes ago

        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.