Sony could be in trouble. Two U.S. citizens from California have filed a class action lawsuit against the company, considering it illegitimate to raise the prices of their products to maintain their profits due to the tariffs imposed by the government of Donald Trump. Why? Because ultimately there have been no such tariffs and the government is going to compensate them for any losses they may have suffered as a result. An economically irresponsible government The full story is that, as promised, Donald Trump imposed harsh tariffs in the country, something that the Supreme Court of the United States overturned shortly […]
But upon annulling the tariffs, several companies sued the US government for the illegal application of these tariffs, potentially receiving up to 160 billion dollars in total refunds. And here lies the heart of the lawsuit. They consider it illegitimate to receive money from the government and, furthermore, to pass the cost of these increases onto users.
In fact, the laws work in their favor. The consumer protection law states that these price increases are not legal, giving them a chance to fight in court. This is further emphasized because it is not the only class action of this kind. Nintendo is also facing an identical lawsuit for the same reasons: American consumers do not want to pay twice for the loss of profits of companies.
Although everything is up in the air, how these lawsuits are decided could very well affect much more than the US. Both Sony and Nintendo have raised the prices of their products worldwide, and this could force them to lower them not only in the US but also outside of it. However, for that to happen, the courts will first have to make a ruling.
All games are a miracle. The development of a video game is a very long process that involves a lot of people who need to row in the same direction and it is difficult for it to go well. But some are more miraculous than others. Because for every project that goes out without any notable incidents that warrant being made public, there is at least another that never even sees the light of day. And then there is the case of Subnautica 2. A rare bird where, after signing a tremendous success, it seemed that everything was going well, until news started to come out without […]
All games are a miracle. The development of a video game is a very long process that involves many people who need to row in the same direction, and it is difficult for it to go well. But some are more miraculous than others. Because for every project that comes out without any notable incidents that warrant public attention, there is at least one other that never even sees the light of day.
And then there is the case of Subnautica 2. A rare bird where, after signing a tremendous success, it seemed that everything was going well, until endless news started to emerge about the disaster of its development. Followed by lawsuits, negligent uses of AI, and truly surreal stories about its development. All while it is discovered that it is the game on the most wishlists on Steam, making it a serious candidate to hold its own even against GTA6. But what is its story? That’s what we are going to talk about today.
A little context
To understand everything else, we first need to understand where the first Subnautica comes from. An adventure and survival game with action elements where we embody the only survivor of a space expedition on an entirely oceanic alien planet. With no way to escape from there, we will have to do the only thing we can do: catalog the flora and fauna of the place, find resources to survive, and look for a way to escape the planet by diving through its vast oceans.
Inspired by Minecraft, but with a strong emphasis on the underwater aspect, the game was a modest critical success. Released in January 2018, it seemed like it was going to be a title that wouldn’t go unnoticed, winning the award for best PC game of the year at the Golden Joystick Awards, but it also wouldn’t be revolutionary. But players thought otherwise. Selling over 5 million copies in less than two years.
With these excellent numbers, they decided to release an early access sequel in January 2019, Subnautica: Below Zero. And although the critics did not respond enthusiastically, seeing it as excessively continuist, the game has ended up finding its audience. Today considered a spinoff, it would lead to a true sequel, Subnautica 2. In addition to the initial problems of its studio, Unknown Worlds Entertainment.
Huge Problems
In October 2021, Krafton, the Korean multinational, acquires Unknown Worlds Entertainment after the success of Subnautica. For a few years, there is hardly any new or relevant information. Subnautica: Below Zero leaves early access on May 14, 2021, but for a while, they continue to not announce their next project. Until on April 7, 2022, they confirm from Unknown Worlds Entertainment that they are working on “the new game in the Subnautica universe”.
The information will not be fluid or constant from this point on. The next thing we will know will be in November 2023, when Krafton, at its shareholders’ meeting, states that its intention is to launch the game sometime in 2025. On February 8, 2024, during another shareholders’ meeting, they reveal more details, stating that it will be a multiplayer game as a service, which causes Subnautica fans to strongly oppose the project. In response, the studio claims that “there will be no season passes, battle passes, or subscriptions.”
But problems arose in 2025. In July of that year, Krafton announced that the founders of Unknown Worlds, Charlie Cleveland and Max McGuire, and the company’s CEO, Ted Gill, had left the company and were replaced by Steve Papoutsis, CEO of Striking Distance Studios. Moving the game’s release to 2026, they did not provide further explanations about what was behind that moment. Until a journalist decided to investigate.
Jason Schreier, an investigative journalist specializing in the video game industry, discovered that they did not leave, but were fired. What was the reason? If Subnautica 2 reached early access status on time, during the year 2025, Krafton would have to pay Unknown Worlds a bonus of 250 million dollars. According to Cleveland and McGuire, the game was ready to be launched in early access throughout the year. That’s why they were fired. To avoid having to pay the bonus.
Of Trials and AIs
All of this led to Cleveland and McGuire suing Krafton. This is when everything behind the scenes started to come to light. Krafton’s legal defense was that the game did not have enough material to “drive the growth and expansion of the IP,” needing to create 30% more content. And they made this known to Unknown Worlds. The problem, in Krafton’s eyes, is that Cleveland and McGuire were only focused on the $250 million bonus, offering an unpolished product, which led Krafton to decide to delay its release, saving them $250 million, “to protect the interests of the game’s fans.” This was something Unknown Worlds refused, which led Krafton to replace its founders and its CEO.
This could have been upheld in a trial were it not for an important detail. There were 250 million at stake. And the CEO of Krafton himself stated in writing that he wanted to do whatever it took to avoid paying them.
In one of the most surreal twists in the recent history of the video game industry, the trial revealed all the conversations about Chang-han Kim’s attempt, the CEO of Krafton, to avoid paying those 250 million. First, he consulted his lawyers who told him the obvious: there is no legal way to avoid paying them. They have a contract. It is binding. If they comply, he must pay. But since the answer was not satisfactory to him, he did what all executives in the world currently do when they want to hear the answer they want: he consulted ChatGPT. And ChatGPT, after insisting that there had to be a way to avoid paying them, told him that he could always replace them. And that’s what he did.
With the records being read in court, that was enough for Krafton to lose the lawsuit. It was demonstrated beyond any doubt that they had made a business decision not to fulfill a legal contract, the judge in the case, in March 2026, reinstated Cleveland and McGuire at the studio and Gill as CEO of Unknown Worlds and gave him control over the early access launch, extending the date associated with the bonus until September 2026.
After all this, on April 7 of this year, Krafton has completely distanced itself from the project. Unknown Worlds is the distributor and publisher of the game. Does that mean they won’t have to pay the 250 million anymore, in exchange for granting them the studio’s freedom? It seems most likely, but we still don’t know for sure. What does seem certain is that Subnautica 2 will be released in early access this year. And it has everything to be a hit. Because it certainly hasn’t lacked publicity.
The first hearing of the case between Rockstar Games and more than 30 dismissed employees recently took place, generating expectations both in the legal field and among followers of the video game industry. The former workers, represented by the IWGB union, requested to maintain their salary while awaiting a full hearing on the matter. However, Judge Frances Eccles rejected this request, arguing that there was not enough likelihood of success in their argument regarding unionization. Unionization is viewed very negatively at Rockstar. The conflict began when the employees were dismissed, supposedly for trying to organize themselves to affiliate […]
The first hearing in the case between Rockstar Games and more than 30 dismissed employees recently took place, generating anticipation both in the legal field and among followers of the video game industry. The former workers, represented by the IWGB union, requested to maintain their salary while awaiting a full hearing on the matter. However, Judge Frances Eccles denied this request, arguing that there was not enough likelihood of success in their argument regarding unionization.
Unionism is very poorly viewed at Rockstar
The conflict began when employees were fired, allegedly for trying to organize to join a union through a Discord server. Rockstar defended its decision, claiming that workers had shared classified information in that space. The situation has sparked protests at the company’s offices not only in the United Kingdom but also in France and the United States, attracting the attention of public figures, such as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
During the hearing, the judge also acknowledged that some of the dismissed had little activity in the Discord group and that three of them were not part of the union. In addition, he highlighted that the group contained members who were no longer employees of Rockstar, as well as a video game journalist. Despite this, the judge could not conclude that the main reason for the dismissals was their membership in the IWGB.
Rockstar, after the initial ruling, reaffirmed its position and its intention to stand firm on the arguments presented. For its part, the union president expressed confidence that a more thorough trial will reveal that the company’s attempts to deter unionization are unfair and illegal. The legal dispute is expected to continue, with the union prepared to defend its case thoroughly.
George R.R. Martin, known for his series A Song of Ice and Fire, along with other authors, has sued OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, claiming that it has infringed on their copyright. This legal action is relevant in the context of the growing concern about the use of artificial intelligence and copyright-protected content. The plagiarism machine has a hard time proving that it does not plagiarize. The lawsuit is based on three theories of infringement. First, it is argued that the use of copyrighted books to train AI models constitutes a violation of rights. Second […]
George R.R. Martin, known for his series A Song of Ice and Fire, along with other authors, has sued OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, claiming that it has infringed their copyright. This legal action is relevant in the context of the growing concern about the use of artificial intelligence and copyright-protected content.
The plagiarism machine has a hard time proving that it does not plagiarize
The lawsuit is based on three theories of infringement. First, it is argued that the use of copyrighted books to train AI models constitutes a violation of rights. Second, it has been claimed that OpenAI has accessed books through underground libraries, which would also qualify as piracy. Finally, it is suggested that the responses generated by ChatGPT are substantially similar to the original works of Martin and other authors, a point that the judges have considered significant in stating that detailed summaries could be easily identified as similar to the original books.
The damages for this violation could amount to $150,000, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations. The next phase of the judicial process involves a summary trial, where it will be decided which claims will go to trial, which will determine the course of the case and could set an important precedent at the intersection of AI and intellectual property.
Meanwhile, fans of Martin can look forward to his return to the world of Westeros with the series A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, which will premiere on January 18, 2026. The series will be based on the Dunk and Egg novels and will take place 100 years before the events of Game of Thrones, following the adventures of the knight Ser Duncan the Tall and his young squire, Egg.
The legal dispute between Nintendo and the independent developer Pocketpair, related to the game Palworld, has captured the attention of the video game world. At the center of this conflict is the recent approval of a patent by Nintendo in the United States, which could have repercussions beyond Pocketpair’s title. This patent could affect practically the entire video game industry. The patent, registered in March 2023, describes a system in which players can summon a second character, referred to as a ‘sub character’, to fight enemies. Although this mechanic may seem specific, the […]
The legal dispute between Nintendo and the independent developer Pocketpair, related to the game Palworld, has captured the attention of the gaming world. At the center of this conflict is the recent approval of a patent by Nintendo in the United States, which could have repercussions beyond Pocketpair’s title.
This patent could affect virtually the entire video game industry
The patent, registered in March 2023, describes a system in which players can summon a second character, referred to as a ‘sub character’, to fight enemies. Although this mechanic may seem specific, experts point out that it is so generic that it could apply to numerous game genres, from action to MMORPGs, potentially impacting future releases from multiple developers.
Although the patent is not retroactive, meaning it cannot be applied to games already on the market, its existence poses a serious dilemma for independent developers. These studios often lack the necessary resources to face legal actions from large corporations like Nintendo, which could discourage innovation. The concern goes beyond Palworld; any new game, DLC, or expansion that uses similar mechanics could face legal issues.
The situation becomes even more complicated when considering the already established titles that include summoning mechanics, such as Diablo IV and Elden Ring, which would not be immediately affected, but imply that the ground for new creations becomes uncertain. The possibility that Nintendo could use this patent in a legal context has raised alarms among developers, fearful of a patent arms race that could limit creativity in the industry.
In an environment where large companies have the advantage in terms of legal resources, the community of small developers faces an uncertain future. This situation not only has immediate consequences but could also have a lasting deterrent effect on innovation in the sector.
Now, the developer has taken Google to court after the one it had with Tim Cook’s company and the most interesting thing has not been its future, but rather checking the internal mess of the former search engine (and current monopoly).
Let’s quickly summarize what has happened so far to get you up to speed, like a sort of “Previously on” because this story is quite something. First, ‘Fortnite‘ appeared as just another app in the App Store and Play Store. Then, when Epic started offering better rates for purchasing V-Bucks, its in-game currency, on the company’s own website, both Google and Apple abruptly removed it from their stores. Now, the developer has taken Google to court following the one they had with Tim Cook’s company. The most interesting aspect hasn’t been the outcome itself, but rather observing the internal chaos within the once-search engine (now a current monopoly).
And it turns out that Epic has shown, without breaking a sweat, that Google has destroyed evidence in the trial, erased chats, and even forced employees to hide their conversations in case they said anything legally sensitive. In fact, they’ve even noticed that Google’s chat system includes a tool that allows employees not to save conversation history.
And you might say, “So what?” Well, doing this while they’re in court because of ‘Fortnite’ doesn’t look good at all. They could have saved all the chats to prove they have nothing to hide, but surprise, surprise, they didn’t. In fact, Google‘s Information Manager couldn’t even guarantee that these deleted conversations wouldn’t have served as evidence or contradicted the trial testimonies.
The reason Google has given is, at best, feeble: “It was that way by default.” A bit like Homer Simpson saying, “It was my first day.” In fact, from the chats that were indeed saved, some requested not to save them due to “the sensitivity of the legal department these days :).” Margaret Lam, head of platform and ecosystem strategy for Android, repeatedly insisted that employees should not save chats if they wanted to attend meetings with her.
All very healthy and normal, but it gets worse: the company’s CEO was actually messing up by not saving his chats and asking people in his meetings to turn off automatic saving. If Epic already seemed like the winner of the trial, now it would take a miracle for Goliath to win against David. It wouldn’t have been so hard to do things right from the beginning.
Purisima didn't like New York in 2006. She didn't like it at all. First, a dog bit him on a bus. Later, a couple of Chinese tourists took a photo of her being treated. And on top of that, in the end, they overcharged him for a coffee at the airport.
In life you have to have guts. That’s for sure. If you want to get something, you’d better pull out all the stops and risk being told no, like when James Cameron simply added a “$” to the word “Alien” to justify the film’s sequel. In this same line of thinking is Anton Purisima, the man who decided to sue New York for literally more than all the money in the world.
Purisima did not like New York in 2006. She didn’t like it at all. First, a dog bit her on a bus. Then, a couple of Chinese tourists took a picture of her while she was being treated. And finally, he was overcharged for a coffee at the airport. The man couldn’t take it anymore and decided to teach New York a lesson by denouncing it for two million dollars. That is, a two followed by 36 zeros.
Let’s keep in mind that right now there is an estimated 46 trillion in the world in total, between virtual and real money. For whatever reason, paying four times all the money in the world to a gentleman for a dog bite and an expensive coffee didn’t seem like it was going to happen. Spoiler: it didn’t happen, of course. It must be said that Purisima was (and is) a professional plaintiff, who since 2004 has already made 47 lawsuits against cities like Philadelphia or New Jersey.
Another thing is that they work out well for him: most of these lawsuits end up being dismissed and do not even go to trial. To put in value what this man was trying to achieve: The Mona Lisa costs 100 million, building the Burj Khalifa 1500 million. Both could have been obtained as if they were small change. There is nothing comparable to the humiliation of being bitten by a dog, apparently.
And that was his defense: in the 22 pages he took to trial, the plaintiff claimed that his pain “could not be repaired with money,” so he justified asking for as much as possible. And if it counts, it counts. This is not to say that you can’t sue the owner of a dangerous dog, but man, if you can, for a little less than all the money there has ever been on the planet. As an idea.
