Find out how to kick start your games industry career

Get Your Free Ticket Today

Tackling mobile's "game cloning" issue

Riot Games is trying to prevent League of Legends being ripped off by a cloning outfit, but is there more that store operators could do to protect creators?

This week saw the filing of a lawsuit of a sort that's become depressingly familiar in the games business in recent years; an attempt by a developer to prevent fairly blatant infringement of its IP by another company's mobile title.

The pugilist in this case is Riot Games, which has alleged that a game called Mobile Legends: Bang Bang by Shanghai Moonton Technology is a rip-off of the enormously successful League of Legends. There are specifics to the case that make it interesting, but the overview is one we're all used to by now; any game that achieves major success nowadays seems to face an inevitable attack of the clones.

Of course, slavishly copying successful innovation has been part and parcel of the games industry since its earliest days, and a breakout hit always inspires imitators. Often, that's not even a bad thing; it can give rise to entirely new genres, or advance the frontiers of game design, interactivity, storytelling or artistry. No matter our field, we all stand on the shoulders of giants - as I just did by quoting Isaac Newton, who was himself quoting the philosopher Bernard of Chartres. Writer, coder, artist, designer, musician; we all take part in an ongoing dialogue, not a self-sufficient monologue, so some degree of imitation and even copying is not just inevitable but actually desirable.

"There are cases where the copying of game systems or art styles skirts far too close to the line, and nowhere is this more true than on mobile"

Yet there are cases where the copying of game systems or art styles skirts far too close to the line, and nowhere is this more true than on mobile. In the first few years of the mobile gaming boom, professionals in the field often grumbled at games being referred to as a "Clash of Clans Clone" or an "Angry Birds Clone" or whatever, pointing out that games which fit within well-defined genres on other platforms don't face this ignominy.

There's a little historical blindness going on there - I have enough white hairs to distinctly recall when "Doom Clone" and "Command & Conquer Clone" were common terms in the industry - but the point itself isn't unreasonable. For the most part. You don't have to hunt for long on the App Store or Google Play to find games that really aren't just "in the same genre" as the biggest mobile hits; they've aped the game mechanics and the art style, the name has a similar cadence, and if you'd lost your reading glasses you might have trouble distinguishing the logos.

The business of churning out cynical clones like these must be profitable, because it keeps happening, and it must certainly be frustrating for the developers who put the time, effort and funding into building the successful original only to see some brazen development sweatshop hoodwink consumers into downloading the wrong thing. On the other hand, most of these clones skirt close to the line but never quite cross over into IP infringement. The frustration they cause is real, but their legal status is also pretty solid; you cannot copyright or patent the aspects of a game that they're most closely copying, and that is as it should be.

Riot's case against Shanghai Moonton is an example of a more rare, but nonetheless serious and quite prevalent, issue: an outright, blatant copying of aspects of a game, right down to assets and levels that look incredibly similar. In this instance, it's rendered even more blatant by the fact that it's not the first time it's happened, nor even the second; while Shanghai Moonton denies the present allegations, it's previously been forced to remove not one but two clones of League of Legends from app stores for infringing on Riot's IP. Each time it's had a LoL clone taken down, it's released a near-identical one with a different name shortly afterwards; Riot is now apparently sick of playing whack-a-mole and has chosen to seek a judgement which, it hopes, will end the whole farce permanently.

"Much of the responsibility for handling these situations has to fall on app store operators - most notably Apple and Google"

This is just one instance; you don't have to talk to many successful developers before you start hearing more stories along the same lines. It's worth noting the strength of Riot's position here. It's a very successful company whose Chinese parent firm is the world's largest games company, which gives it significant leverage and financial muscle to pursue this kind of issue. Even so, it's been chasing down Shanghai Moonton's clones since 2015 and has yet to reach a final resolution - and even when it does, it'll only apply to this one company, with plenty of other unscrupulous firms still out there.

What hope does a smaller developer have of getting a successful resolution to a similar case? How can a small indie developer, for example, possibly hope to exert its IP rights over blatant cloning operations, especially if they're across an international border, and doubly so if that's the notoriously difficult (in IP law terms) border with China?

There is an argument here not for stricter IP laws overall - indeed, the present IP regime in most of the developed world is arguably already too strict, stifling both creativity and consumer rights - but for a significantly improved process for enforcing existing IP laws. Over the past couple of decades, a lot of political focus has been placed on systems allowing IP holders to crack down on consumer piracy, but as that has become less relevant to a wide range of industries (it's almost meaningless in this case, for example, since League of Legends is free-to-play), perhaps now we can finally focus back on the thing that IP laws were originally designed to protect creators from, namely the passing-off of their work or its copying and sale by parasitical third-parties.

A change to IP enforcement regimes is a big ask, of course; but it's worth noting that there could be far better mechanisms within the existing IP laws to cover these situations, and especially to help smaller firms that don't have Riot's muscle to protect their creations. Much of the responsibility for handling these situations has to fall on app store operators - most notably Apple and Google. It goes without saying that a reputable retailer in the bricks'n'mortar age would not have sold dodgy cloned games or copied discs to customers; if Apple and Google wish to take the retailer's role and their share of the revenue, then it's only reasonable that they should also hold up that aspect of a retailer's responsibility to their partners.

Balance is, of course, tricky to strike in these issues; you don't want an excessively strict automated system like YouTube's rightly despised Content ID, but you do want some way for creators to have rapid and straightforward redress when their games or assets are copied. It's important to note that Apple and Google do have some systems in place for dealing with this already; it's a matter of improving what exists and making it more accessible and effective, especially for smaller creators, rather than having to take responsibility for a whole new area.

Ultimately, the problem will entirely disappear, not least because there's always going to be a grey area in which it's hard to find consensus over the line between inspiration and copying, between paying tribute and leeching off another's success. For truly egregious instances, though, the facts are often quite clear, and given the huge amount of revenue flowing through app store style platforms, it's certain that more effort and focus could be given to protecting both creators and consumers from parasitical IP copycats.

Find out how to kick start your games industry career

Get Your Free Ticket Today

More stories

Riot Games acquires media tech firm Kanga

Company creates “fan hubs” for esports talent and franchises

By Danielle Partis

Riot Games diversity figures slowly inching up

But 28% of the League of Legends studio's new hires in 2020 were women, versus 32% in 2019

By Marie Dealessandri

Latest comments (5)

Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany4 years ago
I remember arguing with certain Mobile games "evangelist" here, who described mobile gaming as "the ultimate source of creativity" that what he defends will never be true when a lot of devs out there just seem to seek for a quick cash-in though copycat games. This was years ago and it's now expanded like a plague in mobile platforms.
Mobile platform need to define a series of guidelines and need to tackle this issue. This is overflowing Mobile stores with stolen sub-products that are preventing legitimate creators from having the visibility they need when they can't pay thousands of dollars in marketing and advertising.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Klaus Preisinger Freelance Writing 4 years ago
Video Game Industry Definition #7292

the period of time it takes between you ripping off a game, forgetting all about it and suing somebody else for ripping off 'your' game; i.e. 8 Years

Related Units of Time:

The Gianatendo:
period of time between suing a game out of existence and granting its creator a licence to republish it on your platform after all.

The Microsoft-Second:
the window of time you had to jump on the mobile train before it left the station.

Valve-Blizz Shuffle:
the period of online drama between one company noticing it were their assets all along and the art team of the other company iterating on it.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jake Stefanov Game Producer, XS Software JSCo4 years ago
@Alfonso Sexto: Unlike mobile devs, some PC publishers even resort to cloning/reskinning their own titles to grab a quick dollar. I feel during the past 2-3 years Ubisoft is a great example.

Perhaps this is what the future holds for mobile too...

LoL being the most mainstream game that is actually a clone (of a wc3 mod) deserves no pity for getting immitated. It's the small and indie dev studios that should get support.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Jake Stefanov on 14th July 2017 6:08pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (5)
Chris Fidalgo Content Designer and Lead QA, The Tap Lab4 years ago
League itself is a copy of DotA, and if there were rigid IP laws, then LoL wouldn't even exist to mount a case. More IP laws will stifle creativity. Game rules are like pieces of a song--creating a copyright over a bass line wouldn't make sense. If the mobile company is ripping off the art and lore of the characters, then sue them. Otherwise, realize where you come from and evolve. I highly doubt Riot's bottomline is affected by this game at all.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Alfonso Sexto Lead Tester, Ubisoft Germany4 years ago
@Jake Stefanov: There is a difference between releasing yearly iterations of your franchises and cloning the game that somebody else did (in some cases also stealing art assets) without permission or giving credit. We are not talking about the same thing here.

And worth mentioning too: Ubisoft also creates new IP's and support their products long after the game was released (The Division, For Honor or Valiant Hearts, to name a few) we do find room for taking risks. We are discussing a totally different king of business practice here.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 18th July 2017 8:21am

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.