Drug Dealer Simulator series developer Byterunners finds itself in a severely strained relationship with its publisher, Movie Games, a conflict that has recently escalated into public view. According to a statement released on social media on September 9, signed by Rafał Pęcherzewski, the creative director, and the entire Byterunners team, the issues began in April. Movie Games had initiated an “investigation” into perceived similarities between Drug Dealer Simulator and a newer, popular title called Schedule 1. This move, Byterunners states, resulted in review bombing for their game and a public declaration from them, asserting that they “do not believe we are being robbed by anyone.”
However, Byterunners’ September 9 statement also claims that Movie Games has “denied [Byterunners] the profits” from the console sales of two of their games, Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2. Movie Games, on the other hand, maintains that Byterunners is not contractually entitled to these console profits, leading to a continuing escalation of the entire situation.
A video discusses the ongoing legal and financial dispute between the developer and publisher.
Byterunners’ September 9 statement alleges that console profits from Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2 were withheld unless the developer complied with “new production plans,” which essentially referenced an unexpected change to an existing contract.
Byterunners claims it has made two attempts to amicably resolve the dispute over the hit simulation games, including a “settlement proposal” on July 30 and a “formal demand” for owed compensation on August 14. They further allege that Movie Games only began settlement talks on September 3, after learning about an article detailing the situation from a Polish media outlet. However, extensive discussions with both Byterunners and Movie Games have revealed a far more intricate situation than initially perceived.
“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,” explained Movie Games vice-CEO Agnieszka Halasinska via 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 their lack of involvement in the console porting. However, Pęcherzewski believes the studio is owed a share of the profit from the console ports, as per their contract. He states that Movie Games has denied this payment because the contract only explicitly named PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. Current-gen consoles, to which Drug Dealer Simulator 1 and 2 have since been ported, were not announced at the time of the original agreement. Both parties agree that Byterunners did not work 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 explained. This highlights a fundamental misunderstanding between the two entities. Movie Games and Byterunners did discuss console ports, agreeing that their conditions would be regulated by separate terms from their initial contract; however, these terms were never formally established. Ultimately, Movie Games enlisted a different developer to port the games to PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles. Byterunners feels they should have been included in these discussions, but Movie Games asserts no legal obligation to do so.
Movie Games’ position has remained consistent throughout the public exchange. “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 reiterated. “Now, despite all of the above, [they] 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, even though the publisher believed it was not obligated to do so. For Byterunners, the offered percentage was too low. The developer is now seeking 40% of the profits from the DDS1 and 2 console ports, citing alleged “verbal agreements” that they claim Movie Games has since gone back on. Movie Games, however, denies that such formal agreements were in place, although discussions were ongoing. “Please note that considering possibilities and initial planning (way before starting any work) is not a verbal agreement,” Halasinska stated, “especially in the context of our long-standing practice of signing written agreements for every part of work.”
At this juncture, it appears that miscommunication, alongside differing interpretations of a legal document, is a significant part of the problem. Byterunners initially stated it would take Movie Games to court. On September 10, the day after Byterunners’ public plea for compensation, Movie Games ordered the developer to pay 4.5 million Polish Złoty (approximately $1.24 million USD) in fines, as recompense for alleged failures to fix bugs in DDS2. This fine was publicly disclosed through Movie Games’ legally mandated communications to its 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 explained. “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 asserts there are still “over 300” unfixed bugs in the game, which Byterunners has neglected. She also claims Byterunners missed multiple deadlines, causing “months-long delays” for content updates. This fine amounts to approximately 15,000 PLN (about $4,000 USD) per bug. Halasinska clarified that Movie Games had previously refrained from enforcing these contractual penalties to preserve their working relationship. However, in response to the developer making “outrageous, unfounded demands” while ignoring the list of bugs, Movie Games felt compelled to act. Pęcherzewski countered, telling PCGamesN that these delays “are a normal thing in game development,” referring to them as “initial plans” that shifted when both parties agreed that “the content needed more time and work.” Halasinska, however, characterized an update delivered in what she considered a broken state, four months late, as “far beyond normal development delays.”
Once again, it appears communication is a central issue. With clearer discussions between the two parties, the scope and quality of these updates could have been resolved privately. Since Byterunners made its complaints public on social media, the entire situation has become exposed, and Movie Games now argues its actions were forced.
Ongoing discussions and allegations also revolve around unpaid DLC and whether new bosses and UI markers constitute copyrightable “work” under Polish law. It seems unlikely the two parties will ever reach a mutual understanding on these various points. Ultimately, Byterunners repeatedly references promises and verbal agreements that Movie Games denies. These unwritten discussions are where the misunderstandings originated, and the subsequent lack of open communication, coupled with the games’ success, has severely exacerbated the situation.
Both parties independently expressed a preference for direct conversation rather than social media disputes. However, neither seems willing to initiate such communication, with Byterunners reportedly ceasing all direct contact since its public statements a month ago, opting instead to communicate through its legal team.
The situation is tense and fraught, making a legal battle seem somewhat inevitable. Perhaps this was always the destiny of a game series built on illicit narcotic deals—games that Byterunners alleges neither Microsoft nor Sony initially wanted, until their PC success. Or perhaps it could have been entirely avoided with transparent communication and a crystal-clear understanding of contractual obligations. Whatever the outcome, this creative partnership has fractured, and the digital battleground is already littered with official statements and retorts. Both developer and publisher must find a way to reach some form of resolution if they wish to emerge from this conflict intact. Whether that path leads through open dialogue or a courtroom decision remains to be seen.