-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The price for leaking Pokémon stuff? $150K + attorneys' fee for each defendant. That's if you decide to settle.
LordCBH
Member
Yup. Act like a dumbass, get nailed like a dumbass.
supernova8
Banned
Tough shit really.
mcjmetroid
Member
I'm normally all about being against a company but cmon... rules are rules here.
They probably signed something that said this would happen if they did what they did.
They probably signed something that said this would happen if they did what they did.
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
How did leaking photos of a guide harm the game in any way?
dottme
Member
You messed up the plan from marketing. You impact to potential hype and so the potential sales.
good or bad, it wasn’t their right or responsibility to reveal it.
Pejo
Member
Leakers do what they do for attention, there's nothing else that they gain from doing it, so it's hard to feel bad for them.
That said, The Pokemon Company should feel awful and embarrassed about releasing Sword/Shield in the state that they did. This is a multi-billion dollar franchise, but they somehow get a pass for releasing a game that looks like it was cobbled together by a team of 3-4 indie devs in a year.
The leaks obviously shed a negative light over awful stuff in the game such as shit animations, sparse landscapes with terrible geometry, glitches, poor viewing distance etc. Almost none of that was actually addressed in the final product. I would have preferred that the leaks cost the series a significant amount of sales and caused some backlash from the fans, but apparently Pokemon fans just lap that shit up and ask for seconds.
Settling for 150k for these guys looks petty from my end, but I get that they're trying to set an example with them. I just wish they'd put as much time and effort into making good games that perform well instead of going after leakers with their legal teams.
That said, The Pokemon Company should feel awful and embarrassed about releasing Sword/Shield in the state that they did. This is a multi-billion dollar franchise, but they somehow get a pass for releasing a game that looks like it was cobbled together by a team of 3-4 indie devs in a year.
The leaks obviously shed a negative light over awful stuff in the game such as shit animations, sparse landscapes with terrible geometry, glitches, poor viewing distance etc. Almost none of that was actually addressed in the final product. I would have preferred that the leaks cost the series a significant amount of sales and caused some backlash from the fans, but apparently Pokemon fans just lap that shit up and ask for seconds.
Settling for 150k for these guys looks petty from my end, but I get that they're trying to set an example with them. I just wish they'd put as much time and effort into making good games that perform well instead of going after leakers with their legal teams.
Miles708
Member
Justice system being used for ruining marketing plans is an hilarious thought.
These people made a stupid action but the punishment is frankly hysterical.
Last edited:
Miles708
Member
Nintendo makes this money in half an hour, while this people will go bankrupt.
Fake
Member
More stupid are people defending the punishment. We don't even know if the guy leak on purpose or if they have kids/wife to take care...
Poor Pokemon Company.
Last edited:
ArtemisClydeFrog
Banned
We don't know if they leaked it on purpose? So the dude accidently took pictures of various pages from the strategy guide, accidently sent them to another worker, and then THAT worker accidently uploaded the pictures to a Discord?
Corporations are people too and these dudes fucked The Pokemon Company in the ass. They got what they deserved.
Fake
Member
On purpose = make in bad faith. He still a huge pokemon fan btw.
lol. Just let go your hatred dude.
ArtemisClydeFrog
Banned
His agreement he signed was literally to NOT take pictures/video or share anything he saw in the guide. It's not hatred, the dude's just a fucking idiot. Reap what you sow, LAW AND ORDER, etc.
Miles708
Member
The action was made quite possibly in bad faith (meaning: he knew what he was doing and done it anyway).
The punishment was predictable and it IS deserved.
It's the amount of the punishment that is completely bonkers. This guys are financially ruined over the photo of a pokemon. Let that sink in.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
Game Freak don't need this money. Before let your rage go into post, see the guy side. You don't know if he have the money, where he live or if he have family to take.
Above all, Game Freak/Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft don't need folks like you to defend them. They already have the best lawyers money can buy. Just don't do this to yourself.
Last edited:
ArtemisClydeFrog
Banned
It doesn't bother me either way lol. If he has a family to take care of, why is he breaking an NDA that literally says they gonna sue his ass AND he'll be fired from his job.
So I'm struggling to see the reason for him to even do this and put his family at risk AT ALL.
cireza
Member
It was a joke post.
Still, looking at the latest Pokemon games, I am not certain that they actually cost more than 150K to develop.
No, Nintendo fanboy being Nintendo fanboy in your case. I am right.
Sentenza
Member
Hopefully it will be spent in medications.
Saber
Gold Member
I understand those guys must pay for what they have done...but lol, what type of fucking in the ass are we talking about? Did those guys completelly bankrupt Pokemon Company? Did they lose gazillion of money because of them?
Even if I was a judge and agree that are consequences to the NDA, theres no way they could prove what they did make any substancial damage at all. People basically eat at PC hands.
Pokémon company is not Nintendo…
I wonder how we got to this point? I wonder if we passed laws to fight against this, we should just erase the use of NDAs and let’s have a free for all!
cjp
Junior Member
Why are the majority in this thread still claiming the second defendant was under an NDA?
There’s nothing to support that claim in the court documents.
as I posted earlier I can understand legal action being taken against the employee of the company but his friend in an online group chat? What’s the legal basis for that?
There’s nothing to support that claim in the court documents.
as I posted earlier I can understand legal action being taken against the employee of the company but his friend in an online group chat? What’s the legal basis for that?
Miles708
Member
I'm sorry, i totally missed the irony in your post.
Similar threads
- Locked