How a Schedule 1 "investigation" kicked off a battle over Drug Dealer Simulator

Drug Dealer Simulator series developer Byterunners has a strained relationship with its publisher, Movie Games, which has spilled out into the open in recent months. According to a statement published on X (Twitter) on September 9, signed by "Rafał [Pęcherzewski, creative director] and the entire Byterunners team," this began when Movie Games launched an "investigation" into perceived similarities between DDS and the newer, viral drug dealer game Schedule 1 back in April. This move resulted in a review bombing for DDS and a public denouncement from Byterunners, explaining that the developers "do not believe we are being robbed by anyone." 

However, its Sep 9 statement also claims that Movie Games has "denied [Byterunners] the profits" from the console sales of two of its games, Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2. That said, Movie Games believes that Byterunners is not contractually entitled to profits from the console ports, and the whole situation has continued to escalate.

Byterunners' Sep 9 statement, which you can read in full below, states that the console profits from Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2 were withheld from the developer unless it complied with "new production plans," referencing a sudden change to a negotiated contract.

Byterunners says that it has tried to resolve the dispute over the hit simulation games amicably on two occasions, including offering a "settlement proposal" on July 30, and a "formal demand" for compensation owed on August 14. It alleges that Movie Games only entered settlement talks on September 3, after learning about an article detailing the situation from Polish outlet Puls Biznesu (paywalled), which was published on September 9, alongside Byterunners' statement. However, after discussing the allegations with both Byterunners and Movie Games over the past weeks, I've come to understand this is a far more complex case than it first appears. 

"Byterunners did not do any work on the console versions of the game, and according to our agreement, they do not have a share in the console sales of these games," explains Movie Games vice-CEO Agnieszka Halasinska to me over email. "Byterunners transferred the copyrights to DDS1 and DDS2 to us, including, among others, the right to modify and develop these games."

Byterunners does not dispute this. However, Pęcherzewski believes that the studio is owed a share of the profit from the console ports (he did not specify what that percentage is) as per their contract. He says that Movie Games has denied the developer this money because said contract only mentions the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One by name, seeing as the current-gen consoles, which Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2 have since been ported to, had not been announced at the time. That said, both parties agree that Byterunners has not worked on any of the console ports. 

"The fact that we haven't directly made the ports does not take away our right to have a share, as the success of the IP is also an effect of our work and the games that we designed and developed," Pęcherzewski tells me via Discord. 

This is where we run into the fundamental misunderstanding. Movie Games and Byterunners did discuss console ports. They decided that the conditions for ports would be regulated on separate terms from their initial contract, but those terms were never formally discussed. In the end, Movie Games reached out to a different developer (one of five that have worked on the series) to port the games to PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles. Byterunners believes that it should have been included in these discussions, but Movie Games asserts that there was no legal obligation to do so. 

Movie Games' position has remained unwavering throughout the online battle. "Byterunners did not perform any activities and did not take any actions in connection with the production of console ports of DDS1 and DDS2," Halasinska tells PCGamesN. "Now, despite all of the above, [it] want[s] 40% revenue share from these versions - and publicly call us greedy, which is ironic."

Both parties acknowledge that Movie Games offered Byterunners a percentage of the profits, despite the publisher believing it was not obligated to do so. For Byterunners, the percentage offered by Movie Games was too low, although PCGamesN does not know what that offer was. It's now seeking 40% of the profits from the DDS1 and 2 console ports, citing alleged "verbal agreements" that it claims Movie Games has since reneged on. Movie Games refutes that these agreements were in place, although it says that discussions have been ongoing. "Please note that considering possibilities and initial planning (way before starting any work) is not a verbal agreement," Halasinska tells PCGamesN, "especially in the context of our long-standing practice of signing written agreements for every part of work."

At this point, it seems clear that miscommunication is perhaps an issue here, on top of a legal document that the two parties interpret differently. Byterunners wrote in its initial statement that it would take Movie Games to court for its share of the profit. On September 10, a day after Byterunners' public plea for compensation, Movie Games ordered the developer to pay 4.5 million Polish złoty / ~$1,241,797 / ~£914,580 in fines, as recompense for its alleged failure to deal with bugs in DDS2. This fine was made public via Movie Games' legally mandated communications to investors.

"All of this stems from the fact that Byterunners made wild claims and caused damage to our brands in order to get money it contractually isn't eligible for (but has been offered part of anyway)," Halasinska tells me. "Also, it stopped support and development of the games. Since the release of DDS2, hundreds of additional bugs have been flagged in the game. […] Instead of focusing on patching, Byterunners decided to file unlawful claims against us, which have no legal basis in our agreements."

Halasinska says there are still "over 300" bugs in the game, which Byterunners has neglected to fix. It has also missed multiple deadlines, she says, as Movie Games experiences "months-long delays" for content updates. This fine works out at approximately 15,000 PLN / $4,000 / £3,000 per bug. Halasinska says that Movie Games did not previously act on these contractual penalties in order to motivate Byterunners to fix the existing issues and work on new updates. However, in response to the developer making "outrageous, unfounded demands" while ignoring the list of bugs, Movie Games felt left with little choice. 

Pęcherzewski tells PCGamesN these delays "are a normal thing in game development," calling them "initial plans" that moved when both parties agreed that "the content needed more time and work." Halasinska says Movie Games "tolerated" these delays in order to preserve the relationship between the two parties, but that an update delivered-in her eyes-in a broken state, four months late, is "far beyond normal development delays." 

Again, it seems to come down to communication. With clearer conversations between the two embattled parties, the scope and quality of these updates could have been discussed privately. Since Byterunners took its complaints to social media, everything has been made public, and Movie Games now argues that its hand was forced. 

There are ongoing discussions and allegations about unpaid DLC, and whether or not the addition of new bosses and UI markers constitutes a copyrightable "work" under Polish law, but it seems unlikely the two parties will ever see eye to eye on any matter. 

Ultimately, Byterunners repeatedly cites promises and verbal agreements that Movie Games denies. These unwritten discussions are where the misunderstandings were born, and the subsequent lack of communication (and the success of the games) has exacerbated the situation. 

Both parties separately told me that they would prefer this to be a direct conversation between each other, rather than social media posts, but neither seems willing to initiate such communication, with Byterunners ceasing all direct contact since issuing its public statements a month ago and opting instead to communicate through its legal team. 

The situation is bitter and fraught, with a legal battle feeling somewhat inevitable. Maybe this was always the fate of a series built on illicit narcotic deals, games that Byterunners alleges neither Microsoft nor Sony wanted any part of, until the games' PC success. Or perhaps it could have been avoided with proper communication and a thorough understanding of contractual obligations. 

Whatever the case, this creative partnership has gone south, and the streets of social media are already littered with the spent casings of official statements and retorts. Both parties must reach some kind of accord if they want to emerge unscathed. Whether that's through open communication or a court ruling is up to them.