Game Theory: Will PUBG SHUT DOWN Fortnite? (Fortnite PUBG Lawsuit)

This episode covers the biggest competition between two Battle Royale games, but it takes place in a courtroom rather than in-game. It's editor versus editor, game versus game, with 100 players participating where only one will survive.

In September, information leaked that Bluehole, the developers of PUBG, could file a lawsuit against Epic Games, arguing that Fortnite, particularly its Battle Royale mode, violates their copyrights.

The accusations are advancing and the final decision will have enormous consequences far beyond these two games, potentially affecting gaming worldwide.

Does PUBG actually have a solid case to shut down Fortnite?

PUBG has previously filed suit against NetEase, the developer of mobile Battle Royale games Rules of Survival and Knives Out, also for copyright violations.

These mobile games resembled PUBG significantly, prompting a 155-page legal filing that detailed every gameplay element from waiting areas to plane drops, weapon selection, armor, building designs, and the gas zone mechanic.

The lawsuit even included peculiar phrases like the mention of using a frying pan as a melee weapon to deflect blows directed at a character's rear, which became an absurd talking point in an official court document.

Visual comparisons showed that the maps of Knives Out and Rules of Survival were nearly identical to PUBG's map design.

Courts apply a comparison test to determine copyright infringement by identifying which game elements are ideas versus concrete expressions of those ideas.

• Elements like snipers and armor can be filtered out using the 'Scenes a Faire' principle, meaning they are necessary to the game and cannot be copyrighted • A sniper is an essential element for realism in a Battle Royale • Armor is a particular style element that cannot be exclusively owned

The requirement of exactly 100 players, aerial drops, and the shrinking deadly zone are not explicitly defined requirements, making them harder to copyright than technical assets like weapon models and maps.

Games cannot copyright concepts themselves, only the specific expression and implementation of those concepts. If Minecraft's Hunger Games mode could copyright the concept, all Battle Royale games would face legal action.

In 2009, Tetris sued Shao XIO for creating Mino, which was an obvious and direct copy of Tetris.

The tribunal admitted the games were too similar and stated there were too many resemblances between the design of Tetris and Mino, which was literally a reproduction of Tetris.

This precedent suggests Knives Out and Rules of Survival would be at risk, demonstrating how difficult it is to win copyright cases.

Fortnite looks nothing like PUBG, has different weapons, different design and sounds, and most importantly possesses an entire building mechanic that distinguishes it fundamentally from PUBG.

• Fortnite possesses a unique building mechanic not found in PUBG • Fortnite's visual style, weapons, and sound design differ significantly from PUBG • The expression of the Battle Royale style is distinctly different between the two games

If the lawsuit were held in the United States, it would be a clear victory for Fortnite, making PUBG's legal pursuit foolish under American copyright law.

The case is taking place in South Korea, not the United States, which changes the legal landscape dramatically.

South Korea's copyright laws are significantly different from American laws in ways that could disadvantage Fortnite.

• The first American copyright law appeared in 1790 • South Korea's copyright law was established in 1948, over 150 years later • This delay coincided with the recognition of the Korean constitution and first republic

From the 7th century until 1910, Korea's system was based on Confucian philosophy, which taught loyalty to family and constant self-improvement through education.

Korea is deeply Buddhist, with beliefs concentrated on the afterlife and achieving Nirvana, combined with Confucian respect for education and family.

Confucian teachings viewed art and education as noble ends rather than commodities to be bought and sold, meaning the concept of profiting from ideas contradicts traditional Korean values.

• Since the 1980s, the US government threatened to impose trade sanctions on Korea unless they strengthened copyright enforcement against American intellectual property • American political pressure forced Korea to adopt copyright laws resembling those of the United States

Peter Fang, a Chinese scholar, noted that copyrighting ideas and treating them as property is a modern Western concept foreign to Eastern philosophy. Intellectual property law is distinctly American in nature.

Due to American influence on Korean politics, their current copyright law follows the same principles as US law, such as expressions being copyrightable but not ideas.

Based on these similarities, Fortnite should again have the legal advantage in South Korea, just as it would in the United States.

Korean law grants significant importance to moral rights, including the right of paternity, which is the right to be recognized as the creator of a work and to preserve its integrity.

Both paternity and integrity are vague terms used in copyright law that are difficult to define in legal proceedings, creating ambiguity in how courts interpret them.

Paternity is defined as the right for the public to know the creator for their work, to prevent others from claiming it as their own, and to prevent unauthorized modifications.

PUBG could argue they should be recognized as the creator of the Battle Royale expression rather than just one game, since they combined gameplay elements that define the genre.

Confucian philosophy emphasizes the superiority of the group over the individual, which extends beyond family life into corporate and legal systems in South Korea.

Employees are expected to view their workplace as their family, with company leadership serving as the patriarch, reflecting Confucian family values.

American prosecutors are skeptical about Korean copyright lawsuits, accusing the tribunal of favoring the political and economic interests of South Korea rather than judging the case on merit alone.

Bluehole, a Korean company, has a significant advantage over Epic Games, an American company. If Bluehole wins, it would be an enormous economic boost for South Korea, which may influence judicial decisions.

Despite Fortnite appearing to have the legal advantage, PUBG has a realistic opportunity to win the lawsuit in South Korea due to a combination of legal factors and cultural bias.

• A PUBG victory could force Fortnite out of the South Korean market, one of the world's most significant video game and esports countries • This would represent a massive economic opportunity for PUBG and further strengthen the game

The decision could establish new copyright policies in South Korea that are significantly broader than those in the United States, potentially affecting intellectual property law globally.

This case could impact the rest of Asia and help establish international policies regarding copyright law, defining what can and cannot be owned as intellectual property by individuals.

Weaker competitors like Knives Out and Rules of Survival have been eliminated from this legal battle royale, leaving only the two strongest players in the safe zone.

Fortnite and PUBG are fighting not just for the chicken dinner or gaming supremacy, but to establish a universal legal system for intellectual property rights.

The winner will earn not only gaming supremacy but also establish precedent that could reshape copyright law internationally.

This legal dispute represents a real-world battle royale with far greater implications than in-game victories or cosmetic rewards like V-bucks.