News / Trailers / Articles
The developers behind a Needle In A Haystack clone are complaining that their game has now been cloned by someone else using AI.
They claim the new title is a byte-for-byte duplicate of their work, code included. Ironically, their own game was already a knockoff of Needle In A Haystack. Nevertheless, the developers argue there’s a clear line between drawing inspiration from a concept and copying someone else's assets.
Yeah copying the idea for a game is unoriginal but it happens all the time, even with big triple a studios, sometimes just less obvious. And it’s not illegal.
Just straight up copying the source code of someone else IS something very different
Decompiling and directly using the source code is copyright infringement.
It is possible to reverse engineer legally, like for example the cloning of the IBM BIOS that started the IBM PC Compatible era of computing, but you need to take great care not to copy implementation, only behavior.
When Phoenix cloned the IBM PC BIOS, they had one team reverse engineer the BIOS and create a list of specifications describing how the BIOS interacted with the outside world, and a second team (who had never seen the disassembled BIOS) re-implement their own BIOS based on only the specifications created by the first team. This "clean room" technique allowed Phoenix to avoid copyright claims that had sunk other companies trying to make an IBM-compatible BIOS.
The two previous comments are EXACTLY why Tengen lost in Nintendo Vs Tengen. Tengen did try to reverse engineer the lockout chip, but wound up using the exact code down to the coding comments.
If they had reverse engineered or even written their own code instead of straight copying they wouldn't have lost.
That's true if you're compiling to CPU bytecode, but these are likely written in a managed interpreted language. The class names are still present unless you explicitly go out of your way to obfuscate them.
IBM PC BIOS existed in simpler times. The IBM PC came with a book with all assembly listings printed (human readable instructions, not hex). So it was a two man job to reverse-engineer that: one man reads the instructions and interprets them to English writhing notes on the implementation, the other interprets these notes back to Assembly (both should know x86 instructions set well). That's clean room reimplementation, and this is how this method was born.
Now comes the other question: if we replace two men with two AI agents, is it still clean room reverse engineered IBM PC BIOS or copyright infringement? The AI agents may or may not have the contents of that book with assembly listings in their datasets.
There is a big difference between copy and creating the same thing
If they used same AI result can be same very easily, no need to reverse engineer it. Plus we already know that ai can use data from chats with different users
That is not true, though. AI is non-deterministic. Unless they noth the exact same pipeline to reign-in that non-determinism, that would not happen. And even then, it would be hard.
If both teams were using AI to try to make the game there's a high chance of it being the same, likely even using the same function and variable names.
That is not true. A colleague and I, using the same AI, wame model, same harness for a small PR and the same prompt on the same codebase would get different results.
Not massive difference, given the scope of the PR, but we did test.
It's highly unlikely they end up using exactly the same function with exactly the same variable names on different codebases.
They said that half the methods are instruction for instruction copies. That’s not just copying an idea, but the exact implementation. Exact implementations are copyright protected.
Tbh I haven’t played either game, so I can only comment on the info I have. Based on that, cloning a game and its mechanics is not illegal, but stealing source code is.
If the developers of the clone did what you stated, then it’s illegal too and punishable. That doesn’t mean stealing source code is suddenly okay
No, in my world a game that has all the same levels and monsters and visual style and items and weapons as dark souls should be considered copyright infringement.
If you copy a few ideas and then innovate on them, that's a genre. If you copy all the mechanics and put them in your game, that's copyright infringement.
Insanely bad comparison. A better one would be if someone drew a picture of a tree and you used that as a reference to draw your own picture of a tree, that's copying through inspiration which is typically fine. Then if someone came and traced your exact tree, that's literally just making a duplicate copy (and for legally protected works would be blatant infringement, basically never fine lol).
Notably none of them get to the level of actual theft, which is where you deprive the original party of their belongings. So stealing the picture of the tree entirely, which is generally worse (although it obviously depends on the value of the items, stealing disney's IP is probably worse for you than stealing your coworker's pen).
Honestly, no clue if you can. But it doesn’t matter in this case because according to the steam page the clone game has a notice of no ai usage.
And if you think you can get a whole working game and release it just with AI and no knowledge about coding, go ahead.
Even if AI is used, you’ll still need a programmer to even get it to generate exactly what you need, and then to bug fix the mess it generates.
AI can be great to get a head start with a feature, but as soon as you need to make adjustments (and you will need to make adjustments) AI will spit out buggy shit that you’ll never be able to fix if you aren’t a programmer and actually know what any of the code means
Unreal engine may have done so, but that’s because the usage of blueprints, not because of AI..
And like I said. If you think that’s possible, go ahead. I tell you it’s not. You need to be able to troubleshoot because AI definitely makes mistakes. If you don’t even know what you’re looking at, you can’t bug fix.
Before AI there were templates. That was how everyone learned, run code, test code, read code.
Now those templates don't have to be understood to be used. The role of a software developer is as simple as just running and testing by clicking "yes" repeatedly. The entire industry is developing agents that can do this for them, constantly running and testing code while the developer sleeps, until something good is made.
A good developer doesn't use AI to read code. They train their agent so we'll that they never have to read code again.
Probably the wealth of experience from programmers around the world over the past ten years, including my own. AI has been making games before 2016, and winning game jams where noone could tell it was AI. If you seriously work in the industry, you're over a decade late to the party.
I assume you’re working in some massive company then which invests heavily in such systems…which still have to be developed as well?
This doesn’t mean it’s standard across the board. Maybe at the biggest players, but it still won’t work for everything.
What are you talking about? Heavy investment? The same coders who use templates are now plugging those templates into AI. There's no heavy investment. Automation has a heavy incentive instead, the more you automate, the more productive you are. And there's direct correlation between productivity, performance, employee satisfaction and profit.
Because you have no idea how a game is created then.
I don’t think cloning someone else’s idea is a good thing, but it definitely isn’t the same as straight up stealing someone else’s work and upload it as your own
Your comparison lacks because this developer did not copy the code. They copied mechanics and the game idea, which I agree is lazy but it still requires effort and they had to figure out how to recreate the mechanics
Coming back to your drawing example, the way you describe it makes it sound as if they had the source code and just looked at it and then wrote it down, while the other developers used copy and paste on their computer.
Which would be like using tracing paper over someone’s drawing to copy it instead of a printer to copy it.
A more fitting comparison would be someone (person A) created a drawing of a unique character.
Now person B makes their own drawing but of the character of person A. They didn’t create the character, didn’t come up with the design but they still made their own drawing with their drawing skills.
Now person C comes and takes person B’s drawing, runs it through a printer and sells the copies.
How is that the same ?
We used to call copying an idea "creating a competitor" back in the day.
There's so many games that have the same premise, same genre, that are clearly inspired or influenced by their "competitors" it just matters to what degree they copy it.
Are they adding new features? Making the game more complex or more simple? Etc etc.
Being a "clone" (reads as uninspired copycat) is not the same as using AI to copy the whole coding of one game to another. They are two very different types of "copy".
And what happens when AI generates the same code for two different teams? Do either of them get copyright? I'd assume if so it would be the first that was published, but personally, I'd argue that neither of them should since they didn't create the work.
The output of ai (very tenuously) is public domain. You reviewing code doesn't grant ownership. I'm not sure how long this will last in law, but that's how it is now (and is probably practically the best outcome imo)
Thats the tip of the iceberg. We have a system thay can make very convincing video now. How long i wonder before a defendant or accuser makes a video to fit the story
If people can't make a living making art, quality will decrease. Now I do not expect pro AI people to actually be impacted by this because they are too brain-dead to recognize quality in the first place, but most people will suffer from this enshittification of everything.
Yeah the average Chinese is really doing great, would love to see the Chinese model replace our Western democracies, that sounds great.
It's a different philosophy indeed and it's just plain wrong. Not all philosophies have the same worth. And the philosophy about making art literally worthless so that we can all keep working to serve billionaire's interests sucks.
Lol, I was waiting for an indie game. Decided to search up the name on steam, look and behold there is another game with same name same everything except it has 4 player coop. Wouldnt be surprised if the "developer" is waiting for original to release to generate the copy.
This is like saying that photography would destroy painting and sculpting. We don't know what will happen in 5-10 years. But I am 100% sure that no entertainment sector will disappear, maybe change but they will still being produced.
Well the Chinese short drama industry pretty much “died overnight” with all the AI short dramas flooding social media. Whether you like the content or not the actors are out of jobs now.
You ever see those AI ads on Instagram or Facebook where "a boy helped save this black/white wolf/snake/dragon/mythical creature"? these are "intros" to some of the short dramas. Short dramas or "duanju" as they are called in Chinese are just short series recorded in 9:16 vertical for mobile viewing while scrolling, the episodes are usually 30 to 60 seconds long. Each episode usually ends on some kind of cliffhanger or plot twist to drive the user to watch the next episode. The full story is usually about 50-100 episodes with the first 15-30 episodes being free and usually shown in IG/FB ads and the remaining can be watched after downloading their app and either watching 1-2 ads per episode, or buying a premium subscription. If you watch a few of them you'll notice they always have the same few recurring themes, it's always some kind of secret identities, billionaire romance, intense revenge, dramatic betrayal or sudden redemption. Now previously these used to be recorded on real sets with real actors somewhere in China, but since the beginning of the year there was a massive shift towards AI videos. I just looked it up and in the first quarter of 2026 over 95% of the roughly 128,000 short dramas released in China have been fully generated by AI. A new AI short drama is released every 36 seconds. Why? It's a multi billion dollar industry and using AI dropped production costs from tens of thousands of dollars per drama, to a couple thousand per drama. This caused the daily pay rate for human actors and crew members to plummet forcing many to quit and change careers. As for you asking if the AI videos are dog shit, well some would argue that the dramas were dog shit in general, some wouldn't. Same with the AI ones, you can tell it's AI by looking at it but your grandma might not for example, you can hear it's AI, your grandma might not be able to tell. The stories are generally simple to follow and quite catchy and interesting, they have been designed to be "addicting" so that you either watch ads or buy the premium subscription, think of it as brain rot for mom and grandma. That's the target audience, people who either can't tell or don't care that it's AI and just need something simple and addicting to watch to pass time. They are super big all over Asia and also becoming big in USA and Europe.
That was... a rabbit hole. Thank you so much for your thorough answer. Yeah I had seen some such "weird" ads but it never crossed my mind that the iceberg would run so deep into the sea. So many activities that provided an income or a side-income that most people are not aware and they are extinguished by AI. The backlash is gonna be massive :-l
It does 99% of the work when people use it to straight up steal the code on small code bases. Compared to manually coding a game, AI coding assistance is probably between 5-10x faster (90% of the work). That means a game that takes 5 years could still take 1 year to make, at least with how it works right now. AI can't really do game feel testing and honestly can't test a lot of things. It can only really make mechanics decisions that work well when they're concepts that have been used in many games already, but that's also fast in manual coding (for example character controller feel).
AI slop and vibe coding is letting the AI do all the work without knowing how it works or what to do when its broken.
Its not the same as using it to do work you can actually do but faster.
If we go back to the photograph, someone who doesn't know what they're doing will take shitty photos that are blurry and too dark or bright even with the best camera in the world and the only thing they care about is that a photo was taken.
The biggest problem with AI slop is that they dont care about they're making, they just want the praise of making something without having to do the work.
Destroy and create. I am creating my own unique game only because AI exists. No AI - no game. And this gate get opened for thousands of people.
Copycat is not an AI only issue, it's an issue of the current legal tools and jurisdictions. And I hope the copycaters will receive several famous example of sanctions and fines for their stealing, and they will think before stealing attempts. Btw AI also can help to do this.
You aren't creating anything, you are using the Omega Plagarism Machine to shit out a derivative game. That you so willingly abdicate any responsibility for thinking isn't surprising, but I bet you use AI to write text messages for you. Soon your LLM will be taking your place in all your relationships- after all, why put in the effort yourself? I'm sure your friends won't notice.
I hate people using AI to create games as much as any. But unfortunately creation has become available to the common denominator who couldn’t muster the will to learn proper gamedev before.
You are claiming something, using unproven and loud nonsense. Did you forget to pay Apple when you have looked at their logo and have stored in your memory? Wow, no? But you must because you made a plagiarism and stole their logo.
You know nothing about efforts on work with AI. Try to do appropriate angel 3D model using Claude and Blender and then tell me how effortless it was, storyteller.
An LLM is nothing like the human brain, and that you compare it to one is concerning. It does not have a memory, it has heaps of stolen data. It is not a person, it cannot comprehend or feel.
More to the point, yeah, making art is hard. You're taking an inauthentic shortcut built out of the work of other people, like tracing the frames on a Chuck Jones cartoon and calling it your own.
An LLM is nothing like the human brain, and that you compare it to one is concerning. It does not have a memory, it has heaps of stolen data. It is not a person, it cannot comprehend or feel.
In neuroscience and machine learning, three-factor learning is
Goodbye 🤣 Stealing is still not proven and there is no a completed court decision, proving the fact of stealing.
More to the point, yeah, making art is hard. You're taking an inauthentic shortcut built out of the work of other people, like tracing the frames on a Chuck Jones cartoon and calling it your own.
Exactly like meat designers, do inspiring and partly copying someone's work. Look at this video how disgustingly and shamelessly the artist steals elements of other people's work and creates... his own art. AI IS DOING EXACTLY THE SAME. Oh, shit, we didn't even think of that.
Instead of Twitter hysteria, you definitely need to fact-check evidence of actual theft by AIs during their training (not in terms of piracy). And especially familiarize yourself with fair use laws and how they apply to AI. Otherwise, you're just a pathetic pawn and a useful idiot for the corporations you're supposedly fighting, because with your whining, you're practically begging for a law that will make you pay for the rest of your life for any copyrighted information you've stored in your head and subsequently use in commercial activities.
I could use the help of the senior programmer who collected and stored someone's information and using it without someone's consent. But I don't have that person and don't have resources to hire him. And nothing can compel me to replace AI to him, it's only on my own will. AI opened the gate and I personally don't plan to use it for plagiarism and the real stealing, by decompiling and stealing, but the persons like you are still coming to me and trying to push their agenda for sake their sweet witchhunting. Shame on you
a machine still isnt a human. a machine replicating learning isnt the same thing. it is still a product and man made machine profiting off of the work of thousands of ppl without permission. no matter how you spin it, it is a product built off of stolen work. even if you dont personally use it to steal.
I don't (!) compare machine and human. I compare the algorithm in the essense of AI and human brain. The key thing that differs AIs and human is consciousness and this absolutely doesn't related to the process of AI learning. The situations of pseudo-storing and pseudo-stealing someone's data is exactly the same for humans and for AIs - check the information and correct my own parameters, based on someone's data. Find the difference here.
Also look at the Drosophila brain model and tell how different it actually is from its original (despite the fact that the brain itself is an exact copy of a real living creature).
Also x2. Next time you will request for permission, don't forget to check if you got a consent to look at someone's comment, freely posted in the internet.
That you cannot tell the difference between making your own sketch of an object, in this case a Pinky from DOOM, and the wholesale plagarism of ideas that Claude and all the others are built on is concerning all on its own. One of them involved the artist's actual human effort, one of them uses other human efforts without compensation. You don't seem to have a strong grasp of anything but buzzwords, so good luck with your plagarism game. I'm sure it won't be derivative of Diablo.
Which ideas did I steal from Claude when I found a reference picture, ask Claude to implement it in 3d and then start to polish and refine the details of it as I have it in my imagination. Ok, I didn't sketch an object and what? It's not mandatory thing.
Another case of telling nonsense in attempting to imagine the stealing.
Your broken english is making it difficult to parse what you mean, but yes, using someone elses work as your concept art is plagarism. Bungie just had this exact issue in the making of Marathon, one of their art directors submitted someone elses work as their own concept art- guess what? That dude got fired for plagarism! He's getting sued by the artist!
Just to spell it out for you, yes, using someone else's work as your own is plagarism. You can try and twist it, but you literally state yourself that it is someone elses work that you "put a spin on". Claude itself is literally constructed from petabytes of data scraped from the internet, it is plagarism all the way down.
As bare minimum, my broken english proves that I am not a bot or AI, and speaking from myself. The Bungie plagiarism case is out of this discussion, because this was an act of direct copy the whole fragments (!) by the Bungie's art director, who was subscribed on the original artist's twitter. AI doesn't directly copy the art of the one artists or at least set to not do this. They can be similar, but transformed anyway.
Nope, fair using someone else work is not plagiarism. Learn the matter and then come back.
Copy and pasting code from another game is like stealing a couple chapters from Harry Potter for your book word for word. You can write a similar book about a wizard school and an evil wizard who is after the main characters, and that is ok. But it has to be different. You can’t use the same names, plot, or unique written code word for word by another team for another game!
I think steam should take a more active and aggressive approach to this stuff. It's unbelievable. People should be sued by Steam if they violate their terms including theft of others content
What's the theft here?
I don't think these guys invented the concept of a needle in a haystack.
Not trying to defend the people whotook the idea and made it with ai, but are we gonna pretend like this original game wasn't also made in like 40 minutes lol.
I'm 100% for open source with MIT licenses so you won't see me complaining about ai made stuff being open.
And obviously I don't think stealing by decompiling is ok.
I don't understand where AI came into the discussion. I don't see it mentioned in the original complaint. Is it just how quickly the cloned game came out after this one was released? If they cloned the game line for line, what would AI be needed for?
They didn't clone the game line for line. There was 1 section in 1 file that was the same, and an identical haystack in game. Decompiling and peeling out assets like that takes a lot of time when done by hand. AI is helping people do this significantly faster than before. The release dates are a clue as to how it was done.
Though I generally agree with your statement here, it was significantly more than 1 section in 1 file. The .dll file they mention references 13 different classes (generally entire other source code files) and those contain the same exact error messaging and a shader reference. To a developer this is a smoking gun that someone stole your code; you don't accidentally set up your project with 13 or more classes being identical to someone else's code. That only happens when you steal someone else's code and use it as a base for your own project. It's super scummy.
Here I'd go a step further and say it's near impossible to get 2 copies of implementation of same file by the same model with the same source data in the first place, let alone a supposedly different project with same assumptions. That would be a good DMCA takedown case here.
I don't even get why someone would go trough the effort even with ai to decompile... A game about a needle in a haystack.
I feel pretty confident in saying that I could probably do a game that features that concept, in unity using my AI (actual intelligence) in like 2 hours lol.
Because some people see AI as a cash grab so they use it to literally copy other's work to try and beat them out of the gate so to speak or even just trick people with a dupe of a viral hit like in this case.
True, but what are the chances of that, when we have a wave of people using AI to decompile and port ps5 games to play native on PC? We are at the end of copyright protection.
Because staff don't usually get a cut of sales only a salary which they get regardless of success and staff regularly have reasons to dislike their employer
Why would they risk their future employment like that? Why would the person cloning pay for code. If he were stealing anyway, he could steal far more code with a $20 ai subscription. Someone at the company sharing the code is the least possible scenario.
Don’t forget, that’s also a crime with many years in jail if found and prosecuted. This kind of thing would be corporate espionage and the US really doesn’t like that. So I really doubt an employee sold code, it was probably just stolen lmao it goes from copyright to crime.
We literally have laws against this. If the allegation is true, then this is cut and dry copyright infringement, unlike simply stealing ideas.
Also, AI did not invent looking at source code, you've always been able to relatively easily decomp most games, and Godot and (most) Unity will give you essentially everything you need to recreate a game inside 5 minutes including human readable and perfectly usable source.
No, copyright doesn't protect ideas. It protects implementations of ideas.
In this case copyright protects the written code for the game, it does not protect the idea of a game about a needle in a haystack.
Let's look at Disney as they are usually the go to example when it comes to copyright. Mickey Mouse (at least the more modern version, in other words not steamboat willie) is protected, but the idea of an anthropomorphic mouse is not protected.
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work."
I understand thinking is hard, but outside of elementary school we try actually reading the whole page instead of the google summary.
I'd also recommend learning a little something called critical thinking, that's where we try to understand what we're reading rather than just repeating words out loud.
Try reading literally the 7th entry on their faq genius.
Lmao he blocked you because he's a little coward. But in his response to you he also provided yet another screenshot that proves him wrong lmao
In case you can't see the screenshot he provided, here it is along with his reply:
Kind of funny how he says "Oh is reading hard buddy?" and then completely ignores literally the first sentence in his own screenshot that clearly says that ideas are not protected by copyright.
Edit: Seems like the coward also blocked me now, they replied and insta-blocked me LMFAO.
Now I understand you might read the bit where it says ideas and expressions are different and get confused thinking it means you're right. But maybe read that circled bit about how COPYING WORKS IS INFRINGEMENT.
Which is LITERALLY WHAT THEY DID.
So have fun being a dumbass.
Edit: BTW, I did block you because it's going to be really funny for me thinking about how your big ass rant is going to be cut short when you find out.
But mostly because I'm going to bed and I don't want to spend an hour listening to your annoying dumb ass.
I mean, saying as your initial claim "ideas are literally protected" and then showing a screencap saying "Copyright [does not protect] against copying the work's ideas" seems pretty cut and dry for me. If you're going to use the semantical argument don't also move the goalposts
And everyone has been saying that copying code = copyright infringment. Copying idea = not copyright infringment. Making code that does the same thing but isn't a copy = also not a copyright infringment
And what you don't understand is that you don't need to copy code to do copyright infringement. You can copy mechanics and that is also copyright infringement if the game is similar enough.
It's really funny to me that they chose to say "a game in this genre." Dude it's not a genre, you just copied a game and now other people are copying it.
I collect Transformers toys. There’s a big third party scene, and currently some of the coolest figures are made by third party companies and have very questionable legality. But they now have a niche that’s pretty essential in the hobby and arguably better for the fully legitimate brand. What they do is make figures that are obviously the Hasbro Transformers characters, BUT they have designs and transformation schema that are totally unique and new, they use different names, and they don’t use logos. It’s just enough to make it not worthwhile to go after them. The collectors get a lot more variety, Hasbro has a bit of competition from it but only at the upper end of the price range that isn’t their primary focus anyway, and Hasbro can get away with using any cool design idea a third party came up with because what are they going to do: sue?
And then there are outright knockoffs that do in fact copy designs. These are understandably more controversial.
Anyway, I didn’t expect there to be so many parallels here.
There are three people here:
Person A wrote an essay and turned it in. Person B saw it after it was turned in, liked it and wrote a similar essay, then turned it in. Person C went through the teacher's desk, found B's essay, photocopied it, and changed the name at the top, then turned it in.
Indeed, and in the current game development case, A may not like what B is doing, but can't do anything about it since it's completely legal, but what C did is illegal.
Ah so now all of a sudden if it’s just a function here and there it’s not cloning ?
Brother you can’t just change your definition mid sentence because it doesn’t suit your narrative anymore.
Like I said, I think cloning a whole game is lazy and not something you should do, but there is a fundamental difference to stealing source code
I was under the impression that "Find The Needle" is the original haystack game. All the rest are AI clones, so, having them all tear each other apart is kinda poetic justice.
This entire thing is a mess, because I've seen more and more people think this. The funny thing is, Find the Needle is actually a clone. They rushed it out using AI faster than everyone else, so they got popular by virtue of being one of the first, and now people are thinking it's the original.
It's not. It's Vampire Survivors all over again, which was also not the original game in that genre, but everyone thinks it is because it was the one that got mainstream popularity first.
Copying a game idea is one thing but using stolen source code is a big no-no and always has been for a long time; decompiling projects in the past were very mindful of that but with AI it gets messy when it straight up uses the same code, now you got a target on your back.
Did the complaining party use AI? That's the main distinction. If they used AI to make the game, they have given that code away. AI doesn't care about sources.
Ok, and?
It's one thing to make your own twist on an idea(eg "Doom-clone", "Souls-like", etc), it's another to rip code and assets from another game to make yours
Fuck 'em. They stole someone else's idea for a quick buck, don't care if they changed it a bit. It doesn't make it rigtht that their code got stolen too but equally I have (and will always have) zero sympathy for them.
I don't understand. Shouldn't they report them to Steam so the platform tear them another asshole? Why publicly exposing them first and give them the chance to update their code and erase the evidence?
Could it be possible that they used the same model and harness which resulted in AI writing classes with the same names?
I mean it’s LLM and it highly possible that in case of programming it defaults to the same naming schema
No because they mentioned functions and shaders that are not even used in the shady game in question, whereas they are used in the game whose code got stolen.
These weird sorting games, are they really that popular to make money from. It's like all the incremental games. That all got a different paint job but its the same game
They can be quite fun but the main thing is they're piss easy to make. I mean you literally just buy a bunch of semi-related assets and throw them everywhere and tell players to organise it. AI can shit it out in minutes.
Even the biggest game in the genre, the magic library one, definitely used AI to come up with names for the books even if they failed to ever declare it.
Organising and optimising is addictive as fuck though. There's a reason factorio is as highly rated as it is.
594
u/Zarksch 2d ago
And they’re right ?
Yeah copying the idea for a game is unoriginal but it happens all the time, even with big triple a studios, sometimes just less obvious. And it’s not illegal. Just straight up copying the source code of someone else IS something very different