rdri

Agreed. "Let us live and stop attacking" - yes.

But just in case, "Let us attack you and capture hostages to return more of our land" - no. It's just not going to help.

That's different from what I asked. It's about the other users or hackers, not services. I already live under assumption that no server of any service can be trusted.

Its encryption is weak, its servers completely opaque

Does this mean someone actually can do something to data submitted by me to telegram servers, or my encrypted chats? If that's so I'd like to know a concrete example or a workflow.

another player to try an compete with Steam

Here is the mistake. It does not trying to compete. It only tries to catch as many fish in its bucket as possible, while leveraging (burning) Fortnite money.

It's a wasted effort, and it will never come close to Steam like this. It may even die along with Fortnite, or degrade further.

That implies one person is observing 3 other people from the above (or flying over), which is not exactly trivial.

Sharing a document in Google docs means sharing a link and in many cases with read-only access.

They didn't start the fight. They were sued. If you think "picking a fight with Nintendo" is something you can do any time, and on your own volition, you must be missing something.

Getting popular to that point was not in their plans. You can't judge their success.

And yes it can legally exist. See other creature collector games (that are just not that popular yet).

That sounds like a "look someone managed to pull that off so it's definitely possible" argument. In other words "you can enter the collectable creatures scene by spending that amount of effort". And it shouldn't be that way. The price in effort shouldn't be that high.

Actually, it should be the customers who decide if your product is worth the effort of playing it. There are a lot of rehashed games in various genres (e.g. horrors, walking simulators) and wee see no issue with them even though they are using exactly same mechanics, or sometimes even assets. What matters is users' reception. If users think your product is worth it - it means you spent enough effort already. If your product would be a low effort creation users wouldn't spend money on it in the first place.

I'm sure if Cassette Beasts could accumulate that kind of playerbase and profits, Nintendo would've sued them too.

I just assume that as long as everyone is fine with derivations produced by AI (text, pics, music), all derivations that don't look exactly like original Pokemon are fine (also real people put some effort into those). Palworld compared to Pokemon is a much better product than, say, Fifa XX compared to Fifa XX-1. Also Pokemon series is notorious for useless editions of the same games masked as separate products - that level of rehashing feels much more illegal to me.

Cool as hell but its weight is 0.7 kg.

Yes. I created the document in Google docs, and you opened it in Word.