Attorneys' Primer on Video Game Mods

As far as software developers are concerned, mods are not always a bad thing. Many players purchase games just so they can have access to the modded version. Consider the original Defense of the Ancients (commonly known as “DotA”), which was a “modded” version of Blizzard Entertainment's Warcraft III, an enormously popular game in the early 2000s. DotA had almost nothing to do with the Warcraft III storyline. Instead, it merely recycled some of the characters and landscapes, creating a new game with an entirely new premise. Yet thousands of players purchased Warcraft III just so they could play the DotA mod. That meant success for Blizzard.

The greatest cause for concern, however, arises when a modder creates a standalone game without permission from the developer — and then the new game takes market share away from the original. This is especially critical for games like DotA, where there are numerous, competing iterations and several versions attract significant esports followings. Not only would a developer in this kind of market lose games sales, it would also lose the attendant esports revenue.

Given these market forces, game developers often go to great lengths to protect their intellectual property. In 2013, for instance, Valve Corp. released a standalone version of DotA. After Valve released its DotA, other developers released similar games. Blizzard and Valve — which had long since settled their own copyright issues over DotA — then turned around and sued some of these copycat competitors. That litigation is still pending today.

With the advent of games like Fortnite, perhaps concern over unauthorized mods is a thing of the past. Epic does not allow any independent modding in Fortnite. And Fortnite also offers in-game upgrades for purchase, thereby curbing some of the demand for independent mods.

Historically, gamers prefer modded games over their original counterparts; indeed, the collective creativity of millions of gamers may trump that of a single developer. Take Counterstrike and DotA, for example, both of which are mods that are significantly more popular than their unmodded precursors.

Epic Games may have found a way to reverse this trend: By selling players what they would otherwise create themselves, Epic has effectively monetized modding. But by prohibiting independent mods, it may have also opened the door to a mod-friendly competitor.

Epic might consider selling independent game studio mods or player-made mods. But if Epic went that route, who would own the intellectual property rights to a player-made mod? And would modders be paid? After all, a desirable mod could be quite valuable to Epic, both as a sellable item, and a demand driver for Fortnite. These issues may be on the horizon. They might also be addressed in the next version of the gamer end-user license agreement.

The astounding success of Fortnite represents a revolution in the world of video games and the software industry at large. Whether this new paradigm will transform the battlegrounds from which intellectual property disputes are fought over player-driven mods has yet to be seen. For the players, however, until these issues are fully fleshed out their only option is to game on.

***** Jeffrey N. Rosenthal is a partner in Blank Rome's Philadelphia office. He concentrates his complex corporate litigation practice on consumer and privacy class action defense, and regularly publishes and presents on class action trends, attorney ethics and social media law. He can be reached at [email protected]. Ethan M. Simon is an associate in the firm's Philadelphia and Princeton, NJ, offices. He handles a variety of commercial litigation matters and focuses on appellate advocacy. He can be reached at [email protected]