Area F2 is a first-person tactical shooter and the earliest on mobile to have destroyable environments. Two short groups attack or defend targets such as bombs, hostages, etc. It’s developed on a great premise, and it is completely an inexpensive game as Ubisoft reported that it stole all its concepts from Rainbow Six: Siege.
According to Ubisoft,
“R6S is among the most popular competitive multiplayer games in the world, and is among Ubisoft’s most valuable intellectual properties.”
Moreover, they added,
“Virtually every aspect of AF2 is copied from R6S, from the operator selection screen to the final scoring screen, and everything in between.”
However, it is an undeniable fact that Area F2 is a “near carbon copy” of R6 since Ubisoft sets it– here is an astonishing comparison on YouTube. Gameplay differences are products of technical limitations enforced by porting the game from a console and PC format to a mobile one.
There is probably little in common between regular PUBG and PUBG Mobile than there is between R6 and AF2.
Because the majority of clones are created by small teams that are not being able to do marketing that is why most of them are insignificant. However, AF2 owns money and has lured a large number of users across the App Store and Play Store as last month the game’s exit from beta.
Ejoy.com are developers of AF2, a current purchase of Chinese conglomerate Alibaba, which has considerable impact. Ubisoft does not think they can effectively challenge the game’s legitimation in the courts of China possibly due to this. Preferably they have made a decision to try to restrict the game’s availability.
Apple and Google are already requested by the Ubisoft for the removal of the game from their corresponding digital storefronts. But both tech giants refused. This makes sense because Ubisoft was demanding them to reign over copyright violation claims, which is not their job.
Additionally, Ubisoft has presently accused both tech giants in the federal court in Los Angeles. And is going to put efforts to force them to remove the game from their digital storefronts. Despite the case is quite obvious, the extent of jurisdiction of the court in cases like this is not clear. Also, this case could resolute an exciting example.