The Copyright Blunder Over Schedule 1

On May 24, 2025, solo developer TVGS released its new game, Schedule 1, on Steam. The game is a cooperative crime simulator where the player starts as a small-time drug dealer and attempts to expand their operation.

The game quickly became a smash hit. A week after launch, it reached over 400,000 concurrent players on Steam, well ahead of large AAA games such as Monster Hunter Wilds and Marvel Rivals.

Though the game is rated as “overwhelmingly positive” on Steam with 97% positive reviews, not all the attention it has received has been desirable.

On April 3, competing studio Movie Games SA published a press release announcing it was “investigating” Schedule 1 for possible intellectual property infringements.

Note: The original press release is in Polish. I read it using an automatic translation, which may have errors.

Movie Games has published various games, the most notable of which are Drug Dealer Simulator and Drug Dealer Simulator 2. These games are similar to Schedule 1 but came out in 2020 and 2024.

According to the press release, an initial legal analysis identified the use of “many copyrighted elements,” including “elements of the game’s plot, mechanics, as well as UI – User Interface.”

However, the company said it is conducting further comparisons and seeking aid from a law firm specializing in Australian law.

Fans of Schedule 1 did not take this well. They began review-bombing Movie Games’ titles. On March 17, Drug Dealer Simulator had an 87% positive rating on Steam. However, the most recent reviews have been 90% negative.

But does Movie Games’ action warrant such a rebuke? The answer is no. At least not yet.

A Premature Battle

In an update sent to The Gamer, Movie Games clarified that “there is no lawsuit” and that they are not preventing TVGS from selling or developing Schedule 1. However, they did say that an investigation “into the nature of similarities between the games since a preliminary legal analysis indicated there might have been an infringement.”

This is an important point. The company is still very early in the investigation process. They concluded one 10-day evaluation and are now seeking further consultation.

As someone who has been involved with many similar investigations (although not in video games), I can say that this is incredibly early in the process. There is no imminent lawsuit, and if it does come, it will likely be a long way down the line.

There are a million reasons why a company would abandon a case after an initial investigation. The case may be impractical, the findings not relevant to local law, follow-up investigations reach different conclusions, or the case is too risky.

In short, we are a long way from a lawsuit. Movie Games is correct when it says it has no current plans for one. The process has only just begun.

But that raises a simple question: Why did Movie Games announce their investigation? That I don’t know.

The Questionable Decision

To be clear, almost nothing Movie Games has done up to this point is unusual. It’s fairly customary for companies to investigate competing problems for IP infringement, especially when those products are extremely successful.

What is unusual is for the company to announce its findings at such an early stage and overstate their importance. Typically, such investigations are conducted under extreme secrecy. It’s customary for those involved to sign non-disclosure agreements, and the details are not released for months or years.

Instead, Movie Games disclosed the investigation’s early findings via a press release. There’s not much legal benefit to this. It puts TVGS on notice about a potential lawsuit and makes the case a public spectacle before all the facts and evidence are in.

I suspect that Movie Games saw the success of Schedule 1 and wanted to ensure they were also in the news cycle. What they didn’t expect was that fans would respond so strongly.

However, they should not have been surprised. Not only was investigating a solo developer of a popular game going to roil its fans, but we’d seen the same thing happen barely one year ago.

The Palworld Problem

In January 2024, the Pocketpair game Palworld had become an indie darling similar to Schedule 1. However, Palworld drew its comparisons to Pokemon, and thus the industry giant Nintendo.

Though initially it seemed that Nintendo may file a copyright infringement lawsuit, they didn’t. Instead, the company filed a patent infringement lawsuit in September 2024 and even now continues to file new anti-Palworld patents.

Industry leaders heavily criticized the lawsuit. However, Nintendo was more insulated from the criticism for three reasons. First, it doesn’t host many games on third-party platforms that can be review-bombed. Second, Palworld bears a much stronger resemblance to Pokemon beyond sharing some mechanics. Finally, Nintendo did not go public with the allegations until filing the lawsuit.

With Schedule 1, Movie Games only identified similarities related to the game’s plot, mechanics and UI. These similarities will be difficult to prove infringement against, especially since many are likely not unique to Movie Games’ work.

Much like the conflict in 2018 between the developers of PUBG and Fortnite, they would have a difficult argument to make. That case ended in a settlement that was broadly seen as a draw despite both games being very successful in their own rights.

Movie Games would likely fare even worse.

Bottom Line

To be clear, a lawsuit is entirely possible. If Schedule 1 copied code, artwork or other elements from Movie Studios’ game, they could easily win. However, that’s not what they cited in their press release. Instead, they called out more generic elements that will have, at best, limited protection.

You can’t copyright an idea. Only the expression thereof. You also can’t copyright anything that you didn’t create. Movie Studios would have to show that these elements are unique and original to their work, a high bar to clear.

But there’s nothing unusual or vindictive about conducting an investigation. Movie Studios would likely be negligent if they didn’t. What is strange is going public with these very early and very preliminary results.

If they have details that definitively prove infringement, they could have and should have provided them. There is no point in going public with an accusation and being vague about your evidence.

If they wanted to get into the news cycle and steal some of Schedule 1‘s spotlight, then mission accomplished. However, it’s a situation of being careful of what you wish for. The company now has an angry fan base, a tarnished reputation and long-term blowback to deal with.

If they were hoping for a rush of support, that did not happen. This was a major miscalculation that other companies with similar concerns need to learn from.