Dev. Rules of Survival Against Lawsuit from PUBG Corp, Same Genre Claims Can't Be Challenged

Last April, PUBG Corp sue party Netease have done unfair competition as well as copyright infringement on both their games Knives Out and Rules of Survival.

We are now officially on the platform Tiktok! Follow our Tiktok account at @gamebrott.com to find various information and our other interesting video content.

3 months after this news was spread by various media, WCCftech and GamesIndustry.biz are now reporting that Netease has submitted an application to the court to dismiss the entire case. You can read the document containing the arguments from Netease here.

Netease argues that copyright only applies to an original expression and work and does not apply to all kinds of ideas or genres of a work. Based on these claims, Netease believes that other game creators should not be prevented from creating competing products with similar ideas, rules, and genres. If the two games are compared based on “virtual identity”, Netease feels that if the two games have different identities from each other, making PUBG’s claim invalid under copyright law. This Chinese game developer and publisher also mentioned that PUBG Corp was just trying to completely monopolize the battle-royale genre through this lawsuit and closed any competition with other battle-royale games.

In the document Netease began to compare one by one the elements in the game that PUBG claimed to be imitating. Here’s an explanation from Netease about the mechanics in the game one by one:

Character control/character movement

Netease explained that the idea behind the health bar, energy boost, and the player’s ability to execute commands for walking, running, ducking, lying down, etc., cannot be legally protected because these mechanics are in line with the game concept where players have to kill each other until they kill each other. be the only one left.

Pre-game lobby and waiting area

Netease explained that the lobby in PUBG or the waiting area is just a tutorial session in the game that gives players the opportunity to practice first before playing. Features that serve to train players in a game cannot be legally protected.

Jumping from the plane

The idea behind players jumping from planes to part of an island is considered to be part of the game where players will then kill each other, the parachute system that PUBG is also arguing about is a concept that goes along with that idea.

Spawn equipment and item system

The rule where players start from scratch without any equipment is seen by Netease as an idea that can’t be protected. Netease uses a zombie survival game as a comparison if this gameplay element cannot be patented.

Supply drop/ bombardment/ zone that keeps shrinking

Netease argues that the game last man standing where players have to kill each other requires a mechanic where players have to meet each other indeed comes from PUBG, but the game mechanic cannot be legally protected.

Weapons/vehicles/clothes/consumable items

Netease again argues that this element cannot be legally protected. The reason is that the idea that players can use real-world weapons, use various clothes, limit weapon choices, drive vehicles and use consumable items are not something that can be legally protected. Netease revealed that the characters, weapons, settings, vehicles and others in PUBG are all inspired from the real world and not original and creative works. Apart from that, Netease thinks that PUBG has more impressions dark and muted while the games from them are not like that and are more colorful which makes the games different from each other.

“Winner Winner Chicken Dinner”

Netease fights this lawsuit by bringing the contents of the copyright law which states that short phrases, as neat as they are, do not include elements that can be protected.

From the explanations above, Netease feels that PUBG cannot sue them for claims of copyright infringement because the genre is not something that can be patented by a person or company. For these reasons, NetEase asked for the lawsuit from PUBG Corp. to be completely canceled because they felt that continuing this case would be futile.