Last week, Drug Dealer Simulator launched on Xbox for the first time, but the big news wasn’t about it’s new platform, it was about the controversy surrounding it and Schedule I, a game that’s taken the Steam charts by storm.
While Schedule I continues to gain massive traction, topping sales and player counts, the developers of Drug Dealer Simulator, Byterunners, have found themselves caught in a messy situation they didn’t ask for.
Despite being review-bombed by Schedule I fans, the team has been clear that they don’t feel personally harmed by the success of Schedule I — and certainly not by the idea that their game has inspired it.
The accusations of intellectual property infringement are not being pursued by Byterunners themselves, but by their publisher, Movie Games S.A., who is legally required to investigate such matters as a publicly traded company.
Full statement from Byterunners, creators of Drug Dealer Simulator
Dear fans, here’s our updated statement regarding the ongoing legal controversy involving our publisher, Movie Games, and Schedule I. pic.twitter.com/oWFT7G5Cv8April 15, 2025
“Dear fans and communities of both Drug Dealer Simulator and Schedule l,
After managing the ongoing drama on our side, analyzing the situation, listening to various opinions and feedback, and having multiple discussions both internally in the studio and with our publisher, we wanted to provide an update on our stance regarding the Schedule I infringement investigation launched by our publisher — Movie Games S.A.
We want to state that, despite the fact that we do see many similarities between the games, and that some aspects of Schedule I were probably heavily inspired by DDS, we as the developers do not feel like we are being robbed by anyone. Mind that we are not lawyers, and we base the following on our personal feelings about the matter. In our opinion, Sl has its own vibe, freshness, and ideas that derive from the concept of DDSI , but expand on it and bring them in its own shape and style. Frankly, we don’t care how this relates to copyrights and fair competition laws, but we think these kinds of inspirations are abundant in game development, create and improve genres, and — even if they sometimes cross a few lines — are, in general, a good thing for the industry and gaming as a whole.
We base our stance on our personal opinions on the matter as developers and gamers. If we had a choice in this, we would not pursue any legal actions against Schedule I in any shape or form. Considering we do not own the DDS IP, we do not have direct influence over the decisions surrounding the investigation or our publisher’s policy; however, we have expressed our concerns and opinions to them directly.
We will actively work on voicing our stance during this investigation. We want this to end well for everyone and do not want anyone affected to face this kind of negativity, fear, or hatred. That’s not why we make games, and that’s not what we stand for.”
What is going on between Schedule I and Drug Dealer Simulator?
Schedule I recently hit a peak of over 450,000 concurrent players, beating out huge triple-A games, and is yet another instance of a game being released onto Steam with little to no marketing or fanfare, made by a small team or in this case, 1 person, and absolutely blowing up,
Made by TylerVGS based in Australia, and a few collaborators for the art and music, the game follows a similar loop to Drug Dealer Simulator in that you start as a small-time dealer with aspirations to grow a crime empire. Despite the cartoonish appearance of Schedule I, the game is pretty addictive, pun intended.
Drug Dealer Simulator is a more gritty, true-to-life interpretation of the subject matter made by Byterunners, a Polish studio and published by Movie Games S.A. While the publisher have outrightly said “there is no lawsuit”, they are investigating similarities between the two games which has brought them some negative publicity from people enjoying Schedule I, resulting in some review bombing on Steam.
Schedule I and games like it are putting the gaming industry under an uncomfortable spotlight
It’s impossible to ignore the uncomfortable reality that games like Schedule I are putting the gaming industry in a position where it’s facing scrutiny like never before.
This whole issue is blowing up in part because of the growing chasm between indie and AAA games. Schedule I is yet another example of a viral indie hit disrupting the gaming industry and its expectations of what will sell.
Movie Games S.A. might be legally obligated to investigate Schedule I, but in doing so, they’ve opened a can of worms that threatens to derail the success of both games. Byterunners, the developers of Drug Dealer Simulator, are now facing the unintended consequences of a decision that wasn’t theirs to make. And, unfortunately, the negative publicity has hurt the developers who rely on platforms like Xbox to distribute their games.
Publishers and legal teams are increasingly being seen to weaponize patent infringement claims to stifle creativity. Something we are also seeing happen between Nintendo and Pocketpair against Palworld. Warner Brothers famously patented the Nemesis system in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and Shadow of War only for EA to shut down the studio.
This pattern indicates something that gamers are vehemently against: that the modern gaming ecosystem is not designed to encourage innovation but to protect existing intellectual properties and corporate interests. Shareholders over users.
What’s particularly frustrating is how developers lose control over these kinds of situations once they sign deals with publishers. When you bring a publisher into the mix, you’re no longer the one calling the shots. And in this case, it’s a real shame, because Drug Dealer Simulator and Schedule I should be celebrated for their innovation, not tangled up in legal battles and review-bombing.
They both have such a different style that they can have two different audiences, much in the way I argue with Diablo 4 and Path of Exile 2.
We’re now seeing that these types of disputes can cause long-lasting damage to the reputation of indie games and can create an environment where developers are afraid to take risks, fearing they might become targets for legal action. The industry needs to take a hard look at how it handles IP and creativity, otherwise, we risk losing the very heart of what makes games great: their originality.
What do you think? Is the corporate grip on game development too tight, or is this a necessary part of the industry? I’d love to hear your thoughts below.
