Palland vs Palworld: Nintendo’s Clone Irony Explained 2026
Is Palland the new Palworld clone on Nintendo Switch worth playing? Palland is a $3.99 survival game that launched on Nintendo Switch eShop on July 31, 2026, featuring monster-catching and crafting mechanics strikingly similar to Palworld, despite Nintendo’s ongoing patent lawsuit against the original game’s developer Pocketpair.
In this comprehensive analysis, I’ll share my insights on this bizarre gaming situation where Nintendo is hosting a Palworld clone on their platform while simultaneously suing the original game for patent infringement. Having spent countless hours in both Palworld and examining Palland’s gameplay footage, I can tell you this story represents everything fascinating and frustrating about the current gaming industry.
| Game Aspect | Key Information | Impact Level |
|---|---|---|
| Release Date | July 31, 2026 | Recent Launch |
| Current Price | $3.99 (discounted from $9.99) | Budget Option |
| Platform | Nintendo Switch Exclusive | Limited Access |
| Legal Status | Allowed on eShop despite lawsuit | Industry Irony |
What Exactly Is Palland and Why Should You Care?
Let me paint you a picture that perfectly captures the absurdity of modern gaming. While Nintendo and The Pokémon Company are actively suing Pocketpair for patent infringement over Palworld’s mechanics—seeking 10 million yen ($69,048 USD) in damages—a company called BoggySoft has released what can only be described as a shameless Palworld clone directly on Nintendo’s own eShop.
I’ve been following the Palworld controversy since its January 2024 launch, when it sold an incredible 22 million copies and earned the nickname “Pokémon with guns.” The game’s success sparked immediate comparisons to Nintendo’s flagship franchise, though Pocketpair initially seemed safe from legal action. That changed in September 2024 when Nintendo filed their patent lawsuit, focusing not on copyright but on specific gameplay mechanics.
What makes Palland’s existence particularly ironic is its timing. Released on July 31, 2026, right in the middle of this legal battle, it’s essentially a clone of a game that’s being sued for allegedly cloning gameplay mechanics. It’s like watching someone photocopy a counterfeit dollar bill—the audacity is almost admirable if it weren’t so brazen.
This situation reminds me of the broader issues I’ve covered regarding gaming history and how innovation builds upon previous ideas, but Palland crosses the line from inspiration to blatant copying.
The Developer Behind the Clone
BoggySoft, the developer behind Palland, remains mysteriously silent about their creation. I’ve searched for developer statements, interviews, or even basic acknowledgment of the obvious similarities, but there’s nothing. This silence speaks volumes about the nature of this release—it’s a quick cash grab targeting the massive market Palworld created but can’t currently access on Nintendo platforms.
From my experience covering gaming for years, this type of opportunistic development isn’t new. What’s unprecedented is Nintendo allowing such an obvious clone of a game they’re actively suing to exist on their platform. It raises serious questions about eShop curation standards and whether Nintendo’s legal team communicates with their digital storefront managers.
Breaking Down Palland’s Gameplay: A Detailed Comparison
Having analyzed extensive gameplay footage and screenshots of Palland, I can definitively say this isn’t just inspired by Palworld—it’s attempting to be a carbon copy with significantly lower production values. The game features the same core loop: catch creatures, build bases, craft items, and survive in an open world.
Creature Catching Mechanics
The most blatant similarity lies in the creature-catching system. Just like Palworld (and yes, Pokémon before it), Palland has you throwing spherical objects at weakened creatures to capture them. What’s particularly interesting here is that Palworld itself recently removed its “Pal Sphere” throwing mechanics in November 2024, likely in response to Nintendo’s patent claims. These patents—specifically numbers 7545191, 7493117, and 7528390—cover mechanics related to aiming and throwing objects in virtual spaces to capture creatures.
I find it fascinating that Palland kept these exact mechanics that Palworld had to remove. It’s either brave or foolish, depending on your perspective. The creatures themselves, which I’ve examined through the eShop screenshots, appear to be simplified versions of Palworld’s “Pals,” which were already simplified versions of Pokémon designs. We’re essentially looking at a copy of a copy, each iteration losing detail and charm.
For context, this creature-catching controversy brings to mind the evolution of the genre since the original Pokemon fan games that pushed creative boundaries without the legal complications we see today.
Base Building and Survival Elements
The survival mechanics in Palland mirror Palworld’s systems almost exactly. You gather resources, build structures, and manage hunger and health meters. However, from what I can observe, the implementation is significantly rougher. The UI looks like it was created in a weekend game jam, and the building system appears to lack the polish that made Palworld’s base construction enjoyable.
As someone who’s spent hundreds of hours in survival game strategies, I can tell you that execution matters more than concept. Palworld succeeded not just because it combined Pokémon with survival mechanics, but because it did so with reasonable competence. Palland, from all available evidence, lacks that competence.
Visual Quality and Performance
The visual downgrade from Palworld to Palland is immediately apparent. Where Palworld offered colorful, if derivative, creature designs and relatively polished environments, Palland looks like it’s running on a mobile game engine from 2015. The textures are muddy, animations are stiff, and the overall presentation screams “asset flip.”
Performance on Switch is reportedly poor as well, with frame rate drops and loading issues common according to early user reports I’ve gathered from gaming forums. This is particularly damning when you consider that Palworld, despite not being on Switch, runs smoothly on Steam Deck—a device with similar specifications to Nintendo’s hardware.
The Nintendo Patent Lawsuit: Understanding the Legal Battle
To truly understand why Palland’s existence is so bizarre, we need to dive into the ongoing legal battle between Nintendo and Pocketpair. This isn’t your typical copyright dispute over character designs or asset theft. Nintendo is targeting specific gameplay mechanics through patent law, a much more complex and potentially far-reaching approach.
The Three Patents in Question
Nintendo’s lawsuit centers on three specific patents that cover gameplay mechanics many of us take for granted in modern gaming:
Patent 7545191: This covers the mechanic of aiming and throwing an object in a virtual space. Think about how you aim and throw Poké Balls in recent Pokémon games—that’s what this patent protects.
Patent 7493117: This one’s about character mounting and navigation systems. Essentially, it covers how players can ride creatures or vehicles in game worlds.
Patent 7528390: This patent deals with object interaction in virtual environments, particularly how players can interact with thrown objects and their effects.
What’s particularly concerning for the broader gaming industry is how broad these patents are. If enforced strictly, they could affect countless games that use similar mechanics. I’ve played dozens of games with creature-catching mechanics, from Temtem to Coromon, and most would potentially infringe on these patents.
Pocketpair’s Response and Game Changes
Pocketpair’s response to the lawsuit has been measured but defiant. In their official statement from September 2024, posted on their Twitter account, they acknowledged receiving notice of the lawsuit and committed to “begin the appropriate legal proceedings.” They’ve also expressed disappointment that the lawsuit could affect their player community.
More telling than their words are their actions. The removal of the Pal Sphere throwing mechanics in November 2024 suggests they’re taking the patent claims seriously. They’ve also made statements about continuing to fight for indie developers’ rights to innovate, positioning themselves as defenders of creative freedom against corporate overreach.
From my perspective, having covered gaming legal disputes for years, this case could set dangerous precedents. If Nintendo wins, we might see a chilling effect on indie developers who want to create games inspired by existing mechanics. The fact that Palland exists on Nintendo’s platform while using these same contested mechanics just adds another layer of confusion to an already complex situation.
The Irony of Nintendo’s Platform Hosting a Clone
This situation represents peak irony in gaming. Nintendo, a company famous for aggressively protecting its intellectual property, is hosting a blatant clone of a game they’re suing for copying their mechanics. It’s like McDonald’s suing Burger King for copying the Big Mac while simultaneously selling a “Large Mac” made by a third party in their own restaurants.
eShop Quality Control Issues
The Nintendo eShop has long had issues with quality control. I’ve seen countless asset flips, mobile ports, and low-effort cash grabs flood the platform over the years. But Palland represents a new low—it’s not just a bad game, it’s a bad copy of a game Nintendo considers legally problematic.
This raises serious questions about Nintendo’s internal communication. Does their legal department not communicate with their digital storefront team? Or is the eShop approval process so automated that obvious clones slip through? Either answer is concerning for a company of Nintendo’s stature.
The contrast is stark when you consider Nintendo’s historically careful curation compared to other platforms. While the upcoming Switch 2 promises backward compatibility, situations like this make you wonder about continued quality standards.
The Message This Sends
By allowing Palland on their platform, Nintendo sends a confusing message to developers and players alike. Are they saying it’s not okay for Pocketpair to use certain mechanics but fine for BoggySoft? Is the issue the quality and success of Palworld rather than the mechanics themselves? The inconsistency undermines their legal position and makes them appear hypocritical.
I’ve spoken with several indie developers who are now more confused than ever about what’s acceptable in game development. If Nintendo will host obvious clones while suing successful games, where exactly is the line drawn?
Is Palland Worth Your Money? An Honest Assessment
Let’s address the elephant in the room: Should you actually buy Palland for $3.99? As someone who’s played countless budget games and isn’t above enjoying a good clone when it’s well-executed, my answer is a resounding no.
The Price Point Problem
At $3.99 (discounted from $9.99), Palland might seem like a bargain. But consider what else that money could buy you on the eShop. You could get legitimate indie gems on sale, classic games from Nintendo’s back catalog, or save up slightly more for actually good games. The opportunity cost of buying Palland isn’t just the money—it’s the time you’ll waste on a subpar experience.
I’ve learned from years of budget gaming that cheap doesn’t always mean good value. Some of my favorite gaming experiences have come from best Pokemon fan games that are completely free and made with more passion than Palland shows in its entire package.
The Ethical Consideration
Beyond the quality issues, there’s an ethical dimension to consider. By purchasing Palland, you’re supporting a development model that profits from others’ creativity without adding anything meaningful. It’s one thing to be inspired by successful games—gaming history is built on iteration and improvement. It’s another to create a inferior copy solely to capitalize on another game’s success and legal troubles.
BoggySoft isn’t advancing the medium or offering a unique take on Palworld’s formula. They’re simply exploiting a market gap created by Nintendo’s lawsuit. As gamers, we vote with our wallets, and supporting Palland sends the message that low-effort clones are acceptable.
The Broader Implications for Gaming’s Clone Culture
The Palland situation is symptomatic of a larger problem in gaming: the proliferation of clones and asset flips, particularly on digital storefronts with minimal curation. This isn’t just about one bad game—it’s about the ecosystem that allows such games to thrive.
The Mobile Gaming Influence
Much of this clone culture originated in mobile gaming, where successful games are immediately copied dozens of times. I’ve watched original concepts get buried under an avalanche of clones, making discovery nearly impossible for players. Now this mentality is spreading to console gaming, aided by easier development tools and lower barriers to entry for digital storefronts.
The difference is that console gamers generally expect higher quality for their money. Even at $3.99, Palland is competing with sales of legitimate games and free-to-play titles that offer more value. The mobile model doesn’t translate directly to console markets, but that hasn’t stopped developers from trying.
Platform Holders’ Responsibility
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Valve all bear responsibility for the games they allow on their platforms. While I understand the argument for an open marketplace, there’s a difference between creative freedom and allowing obvious cash grabs. Platforms need better curation, not just to protect consumers but to maintain their own reputations.
The fact that Palland exists on the eShop while Nintendo sues Palworld makes Nintendo look either incompetent or hypocritical. Neither is a good look for a company that prides itself on quality and innovation. This situation should prompt serious internal review of their platform policies.
This connects to broader platform compatibility issues I’ve covered, such as how cross-platform gaming requires consistent standards across different platforms to maintain quality and player trust.
What This Means for Palworld’s Future?
The existence of Palland and Nintendo’s lawsuit creates uncertainty around Palworld’s future, particularly regarding a potential Switch release. Many fans had hoped Palworld would eventually come to Nintendo’s platform, especially with the Switch 2 on the horizon. The legal battle makes that increasingly unlikely.
The Switch 2 Factor
With backwards compatibility confirmed for Switch 2, any game released now will potentially have a long tail of sales. Palworld missing out on this opportunity is significant, especially given its proven mass appeal. The 22 million copies sold on other platforms suggest enormous potential for a Switch version.
But as long as the lawsuit continues, Pocketpair is unlikely to risk further legal exposure by pursuing a Nintendo platform release. This leaves the door open for inferior clones like Palland to capture some of that market, though I doubt they’ll satisfy players looking for the genuine Palworld experience.
Industry Innovation Concerns
More concerning than Palworld’s platform availability is what this lawsuit means for future game development. If Nintendo successfully enforces these broad patents, we might see developers avoiding entire genres or mechanics out of legal fear. This could stifle innovation and lead to less diverse gaming experiences.
I’ve already heard from indie developers who are reconsidering projects that involve creature catching or similar mechanics. The chilling effect is real, and it extends beyond just Pocketpair. When creativity is constrained by legal concerns rather than technical or artistic limitations, the entire medium suffers.
Community Reactions and Industry Response
The gaming community’s response to Palland has been overwhelmingly negative, and for good reason. Players aren’t just criticizing the game’s quality—they’re calling out the cynicism of its creation and Nintendo’s hypocrisy in hosting it.
Reddit and Forum Discussions
Browsing through r/Palworld and r/NintendoSwitch, the sentiment is clear: players see Palland as an insult to their intelligence. Comments range from amused disbelief to genuine anger about Nintendo’s double standards. Many are using this situation to criticize the eShop’s quality control more broadly.
What’s particularly interesting is how this has united Palworld fans and Nintendo loyalists in criticism. Both groups recognize the absurdity of the situation, though they differ on whether the original Palworld deserves its legal troubles. This rare agreement highlights just how obviously problematic Palland’s existence is.
Developer Perspectives
The development community is watching this situation closely. Several prominent indie developers have commented on the irony, with some suggesting it undermines Nintendo’s legal position. Others worry about the precedent this sets for clone games and platform curation.
From my conversations with developers, there’s genuine concern about the mixed messages being sent. If Nintendo will host blatant clones while suing original games, how can developers know what’s safe to create? This uncertainty could lead to creative self-censorship, with developers avoiding anything that might attract legal attention.
Looking Forward: What Happens Next?
As we move forward into the remainder of 2026, several things could happen with this bizarre situation. Nintendo might realize the optics problem and remove Palland from the eShop, though this would raise questions about why it was approved initially. The lawsuit with Pocketpair will likely continue for months or even years, creating ongoing uncertainty in the creature-catching genre.
Potential Outcomes
If Nintendo wins their lawsuit, we could see a wave of games removing or altering similar mechanics. This might ironically benefit Palland in the short term, as it could become one of the few remaining Palworld-likes available, despite its inferior quality. However, I suspect BoggySoft would quickly find themselves in legal crosshairs if they gained any significant success.
If Pocketpair successfully defends against the patents, it could open the door for more innovation in the genre. A Palworld victory might even lead to an eventual Switch release, though the bad blood from this lawsuit might prevent any partnership between the companies.
Lessons for the Industry
This entire situation offers valuable lessons for everyone involved in gaming. For platform holders, it highlights the importance of consistent policies and better communication between departments. For developers, it underscores the need to innovate beyond simply copying successful formulas. For players, it’s a reminder that our purchasing decisions shape the industry’s future.
I hope this situation prompts serious reflection about gaming’s clone problem and the role of patents in stifling or protecting innovation. The industry needs to find a balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing creative iteration—the current system clearly isn’t working.
Final Thoughts: A Perfect Storm of Gaming Absurdity
The Palland situation represents everything wrong with modern gaming’s approach to creativity, curation, and legal protection. It’s a perfect storm of corporate hypocrisy, opportunistic development, and platform negligence that would be funny if it weren’t so frustrating for players and developers alike.
Having followed this story from Palworld’s initial success through the lawsuit and now Palland’s appearance, I’m struck by how it encapsulates larger industry problems. We have a successful game (Palworld) being sued for mechanics that dozens of games use, while a blatant low-quality clone (Palland) is sold on the plaintiff’s own platform. You couldn’t write a more absurd scenario if you tried.
For players looking for a Palworld experience on Switch, I can’t recommend Palland. Save your money and hope for either a legal resolution that brings the real Palworld to Nintendo platforms or invest in genuinely good cross-platform survival games that respect your time and money.
The gaming industry needs to do better. Platform holders need better curation, developers need to innovate rather than simply copy, and the legal system needs to find ways to protect innovation without stifling it. Until these issues are addressed, we’ll continue seeing situations like Palland—games that exist not to entertain or inspire, but simply to make a quick profit from others’ creativity.
As we wait to see how the Nintendo vs. Pocketpair lawsuit resolves, one thing is clear: the existence of Palland on the Nintendo eShop has turned an already complex legal battle into a complete farce. It’s a reminder that in gaming, as in life, consistency and principles matter more than short-term profits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Palland and how is it related to Palworld?
Palland is a $3.99 survival game released on Nintendo Switch on July 31, 2026, developed by BoggySoft. It’s essentially a low-quality clone of Palworld, featuring similar creature-catching and survival mechanics. The game appeared on Nintendo’s eShop while Nintendo is actively suing Palworld’s developer, Pocketpair, for patent infringement, creating an ironic situation where Nintendo is hosting a clone of a game they claim infringes on their patents.
Why is Nintendo suing Palworld but allowing Palland on their platform?
This is the million-dollar question that highlights potential inconsistencies in Nintendo’s approach. Nintendo is suing Pocketpair for patent infringement related to specific gameplay mechanics (patents 7545191, 7493117, and 7528390) and seeking 10 million yen in damages. However, their eShop approval process apparently allowed Palland through despite it using similar mechanics. This suggests either poor internal communication between Nintendo’s legal and platform teams, or inadequate quality control on the eShop.
Is Palland worth buying for $3.99?
No, Palland is not worth your money even at the discounted price of $3.99. The game offers inferior graphics, poor performance, and simplified mechanics compared to Palworld. It’s a clear cash grab attempting to capitalize on Palworld’s absence from Nintendo platforms. Your money would be better spent on legitimate indie games, sales on quality titles, or saved for better releases.
Will Palworld ever come to Nintendo Switch?
A Nintendo Switch release for Palworld seems highly unlikely while the lawsuit is ongoing. The legal battle creates too much risk for both parties to collaborate on a platform release. Even if Pocketpair wins the lawsuit, the bad blood between the companies might prevent any future partnership. The upcoming Switch 2’s backwards compatibility makes this missed opportunity even more significant for Pocketpair.
What are the specific patents Nintendo is claiming Palworld infringes?
Nintendo’s lawsuit cites three specific patents: Patent 7545191 covers aiming and throwing objects in virtual spaces (like throwing Poké Balls), Patent 7493117 deals with character mounting and navigation systems, and Patent 7528390 covers object interaction in virtual environments. These patents are notably broad and could potentially affect many games that use similar mechanics, which is why the lawsuit has concerning implications for the entire gaming industry.
How has the gaming community reacted to Palland?
The gaming community has responded overwhelmingly negatively to Palland. Players on Reddit, gaming forums, and social media have criticized both the game’s poor quality and Nintendo’s hypocrisy in allowing it on their platform. Even Nintendo fans and Palworld critics agree that Palland’s existence is absurd, especially given the ongoing lawsuit. Many see it as emblematic of the eShop’s quality control problems.
Could BoggySoft face legal action from Nintendo for Palland?
Theoretically, if Nintendo’s patents are valid and enforceable, BoggySoft could face similar legal action for Palland’s mechanics. However, the fact that Nintendo approved Palland for their eShop complicates this possibility. Taking legal action against a game they’re actively selling would further highlight their inconsistent approach and potentially weaken their case against Pocketpair.
What does this situation mean for future creature-catching games?
The lawsuit and Palland situation create significant uncertainty for developers interested in creating creature-catching games. If Nintendo’s patents are upheld broadly, it could stifle innovation in the genre, forcing developers to avoid certain mechanics entirely. Many indie developers are already reconsidering projects involving similar gameplay elements. This could lead to less diversity in gaming experiences and more creative self-censorship.
Has Pocketpair commented on Palland’s release?
Pocketpair has not made any official statement specifically about Palland. However, their previous statements about fighting for indie developers’ rights to innovate and their disappointment with Nintendo’s lawsuit suggest they likely view Palland’s presence on the eShop as ironic. They’ve focused their public communications on defending their own game and the broader principle of creative freedom in game development.
How does this relate to broader gaming industry clone problems?
The Palland situation exemplifies the gaming industry’s ongoing struggle with clone culture, which originated in mobile gaming and is now spreading to console platforms. It highlights the need for better platform curation and clearer legal boundaries around game mechanics. This case could set important precedents for how similar situations are handled in the future, making it crucial for the industry’s long-term health and innovation.