Support us on Patreon
PayPalPalworld is a new release on Steam in Early Access from Pocketpair. A fusion of Pokémon with monster catching, farming, building and much more. It is Steam Deck Playable and does work on Desktop Linux too. Note: personal purchase.
What has often been referred to as Pokémon with guns, it's already proving to be a big hit with a current peak player count of 250,553 294,826 (it keeps going up every refresh) on Steam and a Very Positive user rating. So it seems like it might be the first big indie hit of 2024. So it's great news that it works right away!
Valve has already put it through Deck Verified and gave it a Steam Deck Playable rating, and Valve set Proton Experimental for it by default on Steam Deck, so for best experience on Desktop Linux make sure you set Proton Experimental in the Properties -> Compatibility menu.
Pictured: Palworld on Kubuntu 23.10. Click them to enlarge.
For Steam Deck the performance does have some issues and Valve noted various problems in their testing including: small text, graphics needing to be configured manually, you need to manually bring up the on-screen keyboard and some functionality may not be accessible with the default controller configuration.
It was designed as a multiplayer game clearly in many ways with support for 4 player co-op and 32 players on dedicated servers. You can play solo without issues though.
In my own testing on a Steam Deck OLED I've been using these settings:
So far, this has given a somewhat acceptable performance level. It ranges from 25-45 FPS depending on what I am doing which is very playable - most of the time above 30FPS. Some spots in the open world I've seen bring it down to 25FPS, especially during bigger combat sections. However, one clear problem is the menu system. Some of the in-game menus bring the performance down pretty hard to around 20FPS but it will come back up when you close the menus.
Text is definitely small too, I've had to pull the Steam Deck closer to my face to actually read some of the on-screen details, so it's quite annoying. It's going to need some text scaling quite urgently as it's really not comfortable to read a lot of it. The icons are tiny too.
Pictured - Palworld on Steam Deck. Click them to enlarge.
For battery life on the Steam Deck OLED, you're looking at around ~2 hours from a full charge with a 60FPS frame limit.
Meanwhile on Desktop Linux (Kubuntu 23.10) with an AMD Ryzen 5800X and Radeon 6800XT the experience has been overall pretty great. Testing on the highest possible graphics settings it's always been above 60FPS so far. Most of the time between 80-120FPS depending on where I am in the open world and what I'm doing. For a big open world game in Early Access running through Proton, that's actually pretty good.
This is only an early preliminary test as i haven't had too long with it, so keep that in mind. It's also Early Access, so everything is subject to change but it's an incredibly promising start for Palworld.
One thing I will address directly, since this always comes up in comments whenever there's a new monster catching game, the elephant in the room — Nintendo. They don't (and can't) own the rights to an entire genre, but Pokémon is obviously popular and so there's always comparisons but Nintendo can't just go after developers of other similar games. However, in this case, plenty of the creatures do have a striking similarity to various Pokémon designs and some even look like colour-flips with a few tweaks. So it will be very interesting to see what happens for this one specifically.
Something else that needs noting, is that the developer still has other games in Early Access while launching this also into Early Access. Craftopia, for example, looks largely similar. Like they took their own game, and added these creatures into it to make it a different game.
To sum up what I've seen of it so far it feels very much like a blending of ARK Survival Evolved, Pokémon and Zelda: Breath of the Wild mechanically. One or two sounds even seemed like they were right out of Zelda (very close at least). It's very derivative. But then so are a lot of survival games. The small human of mine is going to freak when they see it. I can definitely see why people are enjoying it so much already and I fear it's going to take over my life for a while.
You can buy Palworld on Steam.
Original Early Access trailer below:
Direct Link
Update 21/01/24: the article originally said Palworld had an internet requirement for single-player, as Valve state it on their Deck Verified rating. Valve's notice is incorrect so the article text was updated. Additionally here's a new Steam Deck video of the game and some quick thoughts:
Direct Link
soulsource Jan 19
I'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...
What copyright claim would Nintendo have?
I would guess that they would argue that the "pals" are derivative Pokémons.I'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...
What copyright claim would Nintendo have?
Last edited by LoudTechie on 19 January 2024 at 6:42 pm UTC
I myself am more curious if Ubisoft would consider the use of their style and gliders an infringement.
I'm going to have a mental meltdown if I see more comments about Nintendo non sense, no more reading about this game until I decide to buy it.
Last edited by Eri on 19 January 2024 at 6:51 pm UTC
I would guess that they would argue that the "pals" are derivative Pokémons.I'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...
What copyright claim would Nintendo have?
Being derivative isn't copyright infringement. They would have to have the same characters, use the same character names or use the actual code from a Pokemon game. Copyright law isn't like trademark law where a company can claim another's logo is "too close" to their own. In copyright it literally has to be a copy, and you also can't copyright ideas. That's why Transformers and GoBots have existed in the same world for decades and there are tons of Pokemon lookalikes.
and there are tons of Pokemon lookalikes.This is a key thing - there are plenty that look very close, but which never attracted any legal attention because it would've been laughed out of court.
I mean, has anyone on GOL ever seen these before? They're from the 1999 Game Boy Colour game, Bomberman Max, and they didn't attract any legal attention whatsoever.
What about Keitai Denjuu Telefang? Again, no trouble here, and it even had a manga that looked incredibly similar.
And Robopon, anyone?
Some of these fellas are much closer in design than the ones in Palworld - and one of the Robopon ones is literally just Kirby with Pac-Man sitting on his head.
Last edited by Pengling on 19 January 2024 at 9:37 pm UTC
pleasereadthemanual Jan 19
Well, being derivative is actually copyright infringement. That's why unauthorized translations fall under copyright infringement; they're derivative works.I would guess that they would argue that the "pals" are derivative Pokémons.I'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...
What copyright claim would Nintendo have?
Being derivative isn't copyright infringement.
JK Rowling sued over Tanya Grotter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Legal_history
In 2003, courts there prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of the first in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, after Rowling and Time Warner's lawyers issued a cease and desist order, arguing that the Grotter books violated copyright law, specifically infringing on Rowling's right to control derivative works.
TruckStopSantaClaus Jan 19
Is this still the case?
Being derivative isn't copyright infringement.Well, being derivative is actually copyright infringement. That's why unauthorized translations fall under copyright infringement; they're derivative works.
JK Rowling sued over Tanya Grotter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Legal_history
In 2003, courts there prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of the first in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, after Rowling and Time Warner's lawyers issued a cease and desist order, arguing that the Grotter books violated copyright law, specifically infringing on Rowling's right to control derivative works.
I think you're veering into straw man territory here, but I'll agree that derivative works infringe copyright. But only if they fit the definition:
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.(Emphasis mine.)
Does Palworld fail that check? Some of the creatures look very similar to Pokemon monsters, but as Pengling's post showed, even more blatant examples have gone uncontested in commercial products, which works against any copyright claim on that front. The rest is no more derivative in the copyright sense than most games you can find on Steam.
Being derivative isn't copyright infringement.Well, being derivative is actually copyright infringement. That's why unauthorized translations fall under copyright infringement; they're derivative works.
JK Rowling sued over Tanya Grotter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Legal_history
In 2003, courts there prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of the first in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, after Rowling and Time Warner's lawyers issued a cease and desist order, arguing that the Grotter books violated copyright law, specifically infringing on Rowling's right to control derivative works.
I think you're veering into straw man territory here, but I'll agree that derivative works infringe copyright. But only if they fit the definition:
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.(Emphasis mine.)
Does Palworld fail that check? Some of the creatures look very similar to Pokemon monsters, but as Pengling's post showed, even more blatant examples have gone uncontested in commercial products, which works against any copyright claim on that front. The rest is no more derivative in the copyright sense than most games you can find on Steam.
Tnx.
That's indeed sounds like a persuasive argument.
In that case I'm seeing more problems with the gliders and the catching ball than with the Pals.
Having said that. I just found a way more persuasive argument. Both Nintendo and the author of this game are Japanese, which means they would be subject to Japanese law. Japanese law is a lot stricter on derivative works than US law if I understand it correctly.
They need the work to be adapted.
Pokemon is more a brand than a single work(it's not even from a single author) and the gameplay doesn't look really Pokemon like.
- Someone translating works and then selling it, sure it may add value for that language, but the original work is not their own to sell in any form.
- something that has similarities to something else.
In that case I'm seeing more problems with the gliders and the catching ball than with the Pals.The catching ball mechanic has been copied by plenty of monster catching games before, and gliding wasn't invented by Nintendo either. The paraglider does look similar to the one in the Zelda game (based on screenshots), but I doubt that's enough for an infringement claim. Even if it was, all they could expect is that Palworld would have to make minor changes to the design of that particular element.
The catching ball mechanic has been copied by plenty of monster catching games before,This mechanic originated in the 1994 SNES RPG Robotrek, and Enix (who, as we know, later merged with Square to form Square-Enix) has never taken any action about it that I'm aware of.
Let's be honest, the "keeping a creature in a ball" idea is inspired by gachapon toys, so there's generic prior-art from long before any video game employed the idea.
Last edited by Pengling on 20 January 2024 at 2:16 pm UTC
pleasereadthemanual Jan 20
There's also a very clear obvious difference betweenI'd like to clarify that Tanya Grotter was not a translation of Harry Potter; it was a work that had similarities. Even reading the table of similar traits, I'm not entirely convinced it qualifies as a derivative work...
- Someone translating works and then selling it, sure it may add value for that language, but the original work is not their own to sell in any form.
- something that has similarities to something else.
I wrote the comment quickly and didn't properly explain that; sorry.
I think you're veering into straw man territory here, but I'll agree that derivative works infringe copyright.That's all I was trying to say. I agree with Pengling; just clarifying that a "derivative work" does qualify as copyright infringement. Not saying that Pal World falls under that category.
But I would say that if Nintendo sued, they'd need to defend themselves in court over it. That's how we end up with situations like the Bleem! emulator winning in court, but the company behind them going bankrupt and the emulator disappearing anyway. You don't need to be legally right to win; you just need to have money and ambition.
That's a whole other argument, of course.
I agree with Pengling; just clarifying that a "derivative work" does qualify as copyright infringement. Not saying that Pal World falls under that category.I get where you're coming from.
It's an interestingly fine line!For those who don't find a hobby in reading about this stuff (I've read a bit on the topic because I find it interesting to see how genres evolve and what is and isn't allowed to shape them), it's probably worth noting that there's a difference between derivative works and scènes à faire - that is, traits and tropes that any given genre is outright expected to have, which are not copyrightable.
This issue first reared its head in the video gaming realm with the 1994 legal case of Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., in which Capcom took issue with Data East's 1993 title, Fighter's History, claiming that it infringed on rights established by the genre-defining Street Fighter II. After Capcom lost basically on the basis of it being considered an expected trope that a fighting-game would have certain combat and scenery stereotypes, it allowed fighting-games to bloom into the juggernaut that they were in the 1990s. It's worth noting that, in that case, the design-documents for Fighter's History outright named elements from Street Fighter II that they intended to ape!
EDIT: Obviously, this case extends far beyond fighting-games, though - it warded off the chilling of the development of all genres, at the end of the day.
Last edited by Pengling on 20 January 2024 at 3:38 pm UTC
See more from me