Earlier this week, we reported of Ubisoft's lawsuit against Google and Apple for hosting an alleged ripoff of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege on their online stores. The game, Area F2, was developed by Ejoy.com which apparently did not want to go further with the potential legal actions awaiting, as the company announced the termination of its game.

Effective as from 20 May 2020 at 12:00 PM, Area F2's services and online events were terminated and has been pulled from the Google Play Store and Apple Store. The company is also refunding players who made in-app purchases.

The game's developers did not directly address the conflict with Ubisoft, but rather attributed the shut down to "carrying out improvements to Area F2 in order to deliver a better experience to players". This means that Area F2 might still resurface in a new, less Rainbow Six: Siege-y look later on.

SOURCE

 

[pedro702]

well that will show them to atleast make a diferent UI so it isnt so obvious lol.

 

[MorningBlunt]

That was fast.

 

[Xzi]

Pretty much admitting their guilt then, yeah?

 

[TunaKetchup]

Pretty much admitting their guilt then, yeah?

Nah

It could just be admitting that they dont have the resources to fight a lawsuit from Ubisoft

Cut their loses and move on

 

[Xzi]

Nah

It could just be admitting that they dont have the resources to fight a lawsuit from Ubisoft

Cut their loses and move on

The lawsuit is still happening lol, they can't just take it down now and pretend it never happened.

 

[spotanjo3]

Good job. They should make their own creative rather than copying and clone like that. They should use their own brains, lol.

 

[tech3475]

The lawsuit is still happening lol, they can't just take it down now and pretend it never happened.

They may be hoping to please Ubisoft enough that they stop it, please a judge who may dismiss it or for some kind of settlement and/or reduce damages, etc.

 

[Jiehfeng]

Never play with fire, y'know.

 

[Deleted User]

we did it boys: copycats are no more

 

[pin]

Nah

It could just be admitting that they dont have the resources to fight a lawsuit from Ubisoft

Cut their loses and move on

They're a subsidiary of Alibaba so sure they have more than enough resources to fight Ubi

 

[smf]

The lawsuit is still happening lol, they can't just take it down now and pretend it never happened.

Pretty much, if they take it down as soon as they were notified and refund everyone then I'm not sure what the court could really do.

 

[Xzi]

Pretty much, if they take it down as soon as they were notified and refund everyone then I'm not sure what the court could really do.

If it were the players suing them then that would've settled it, but Ubisoft is still going to want their piece of the pie for blatant IP and copyright infringement. Even if Ejoy is already flat broke I doubt they'll mind driving them into bankruptcy, or otherwise they'll get the money out of Apple and Google instead. If it's the latter, Ejoy is sure to be banned from the Play/App store for life, so they're totally fucked either way.

 

[smf]

but Ubisoft is still going to want their piece of the pie for blatant IP and copyright infringement.

What pie? It no longer exists.

They'll say that it was rogue employees, they've rectified it by taking the game down & refunded everyone. Thanks for letting us know.

As it was taken down quickly then I can't see damages being awarded either.

 

[FAST6191]

If it were the players suing them then that would've settled it, but Ubisoft is still going to want their piece of the pie for blatant IP and copyright infringement. Even if Ejoy is already flat broke I doubt they'll mind driving them into bankruptcy, or otherwise they'll get the money out of Apple and Google instead. If it's the latter, Ejoy is sure to be banned from the Play/App store for life, so they're totally fucked either way.

I have not played siege enough to memorise it for a comparison here (watched a friend play it a few times and killed a few people while they went for a leak), that said I am generally dubious about claims of copyright infringement in games, mainly as most of the ones in the past that weren't Limbo of the Lost* seldom make it much beyond the valid coincidence test.

As for "completely fucked"... so make a new company with all the same people and make a new account (a whole $25 for android, is apple still $99 a year?). What an insurmountable task.


*choice video

 

[Xzi]

They'll say that it was rogue employees

Rofl what. "Couple of rogue employees held us all at gunpoint until we put all our resources into releasing this copy and paste game." If not the weakest legal defense I've ever heard, it would definitely be among the most ridiculous.

As it was taken down quickly then I can't see damages being awarded either.

It was taken down AFTER they were caught. I have no idea when the game was released, but I'm sure it was live for at least a few months. You're basically suggesting that you can steal as much stuff as you want from Wal-Mart as long as you put it back after they've sent the cops to your house. Like the opposite concept of Minority Report, where you can magically erase crimes that happened in the past before you're held liable for committing them.

I am generally dubious about claims of copyright infringement in games

If it were any developer outside of China being accused of this, I'd be right there with you. This shit's been going on for the better part of a decade, though, and it only ever takes ten seconds of game footage to verify an overwhelming number of obvious similarities to the IP they're infringing upon.

As for "completely fucked"... so make a new company with all the same people and make a new account (a whole $25 for android, is apple still $99 a year?). What an insurmountable task.

That's assuming each individual developer/employee isn't blacklisted for life. If I had to guess, neither Google nor Apple is all that forgiving when it comes to being forced into picking up the tab for someone else's legal damages.

 

[Fusion]

Why don't they work with Ubi and have this as an offical mobile version of R6S they can do a 80/20 deal and be done with it and let them maintain it and just have it as a money train like the PUBG Company does with Tencent and PUBGMobile. Done and done, everyone is happy. It was a good game as it was too.

 

[Deleted User]

No sympathy from me; they only have themselves to blame.

 

[FAST6191]

That's assuming each individual developer/employee isn't blacklisted for life. If I had to guess, neither Google nor Apple is all that forgiving when it comes to being forced into picking up the tab for someone else's legal damages.

Are Google or Apple likely to be on the hook for much? Would have thought that fairly clearly under they are a distributor and as long as they responded to a valid request in a reasonable time...

Skimmed the Google dev agreement as well (which also has a few things largely aimed at indemnifying them from problems by virtue of making it clear they are a distributor)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580732/000119312514056089/d564433dex1011.htm
Only thing vaguely about individuals there concerns individuals barred from using android as a whole (presumably those with court orders not to play with computers, or places where export controls prevent it from being used. I guess there are some court agreements as well for some hackers, Geohot vs Sony being the more notable for these sorts of circles, to not fiddle with their stuff but I have not heard of that applying to anything like this), and if an individual does anything within a company they in turn are agreeing that they are doing it on behalf of their company.

Likewise I don't see anything in that saying Google needs to have all developers that worked on a project be named at time of submission (and probably every update as well), and I don't tend to see anything like that until we get to big boy defence contracts and the like (and even then it is not necessarily the order of the day).

 

[smf]

Rofl what. "Couple of rogue employees held us all at gunpoint until we put all our resources into releasing this copy and paste game." If not the weakest legal defense I've ever heard, it would definitely be among the most ridiculous.

Nice strawman. Who said anything about gunpoint?

In my experience of software companies, the owners have no idea how their employees do anything.

It was taken down AFTER they were caught.

It was taken down after they were made of the potential violation.

I'm not sure of your point here, it would seem a little weird for them to take it down before they had been made aware of a violation.

You're basically suggesting that you can steal as much stuff as you want from Wal-Mart as long as you put it back after they've sent the cops to your house.

No, as that is criminal activity. This is a civil case and liability in corporate law works differently anyway, because nobody would run a company if they became criminally liable for anything their employees did.