Home Gaming Rainbow Six Siege “carbon copy” prompts Ubisoft to sue Apple and Google

Rainbow Six Siege “carbon copy” prompts Ubisoft to sue Apple and Google

1 min read
3
Rainbow-Six-Siege-Mobile-5

I do so enjoy the drama that often unfolds around video game lawsuits, especially the ones that stem from plagiarism. There’s just something ballsy, and admittedly stupid, about a developer thinking they can pull one over the eyes of industry titans and not be noticed. Such is the case with the poorly named Area F2,  which is described by the developers as a “Close-Quarters Battle (AKA CQB) shooting game on mobile”, the first of it’s kind apparently. Which would be impressive if it weren’t for the fact that the only truth in that statement is the “on mobile” part but because everything else looks to have been ripped straight from Rainbow Six: Siege, prompting legal action from Ubisoft.

Rainbow-Six-Siege-Mobile

Ubisoft reportedly previously notified Google and Apple of Area F2’s similarities, attempting to push for its removal from the respective app stores. Following the refusal of both companies, Ubisoft has now filed legal action citing that the overt similarities are undeniable and that swift action must be taken against the game. Ubisoft went on to elaborate that the similarities cannot “seriously be disputed” as “virtually every aspect” of Area F2 has been cloned from their game. Of course, the waters of these kinds of lawsuits are often far murkier than they appear to us folks, but it’s a very plainly obvious job of homework-copying. What the end result will be, is anyone’s guess.

play-area-f2-on-pc-with-ldplayer

What I find interesting about this case is that Ubisoft is seemingly targeting the wrong people. Why go after Google and Apple when the actual perpetrators of this act of plagiarism are the developers of Area F2? Ejoy probably knew what they were doing and released it into the app store regardless, so why not aim for the head rather than the chest? I’m not a lawyer nor am I about to speculate about anything related to the legality of the situation.

It’s just a little…weird, right?

Last Updated: May 18, 2020

3 Comments

  1. Pariah

    May 18, 2020 at 09:53

    Here’s the thing – if they can set a precedent that the stores must shut it down – that means that instead of themselves having to go after every head it becomes the responsibility of the stores. Shutting down the method of distribution is a much smarter way to future-proof it. Product is useless, after all, if you can’t sell it.

    Reply

    • Mark Treloar

      May 18, 2020 at 12:39

      Also from what I’ve heard its also very complicated to sue someone in China

      Reply

  2. I_am_Duffman!

    May 18, 2020 at 12:43

    “so why not aim for the head rather than the chest?”

    Because that head is in China?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Check Also

Have a Far Cry 5 Weekend on Ubisoft

I’m baaaaack…. Geez…bugs are sneaky but stupid. I still feel like warmed up Gouda, but any…