Riot Games is suing Valorant copycat game Hyper Front

Riot Games has escalated its intellectual property protection efforts by filing formal legal complaints against Chinese gaming giant NetEase across multiple international jurisdictions. The lawsuits, documented in legal filings across the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, and Singapore, represent a coordinated global strategy to address what Riot describes as systematic creative appropriation.

The legal actions specifically target Hyper Front, NetEase’s mobile tactical shooter that bears striking resemblances to Riot’s popular PC title Valorant. Legal experts note that targeting multiple jurisdictions simultaneously increases pressure on NetEase and demonstrates Riot’s commitment to protecting its intellectual assets worldwide.

The legal documentation provides exhaustive comparisons between character designs, highlighting what Riot claims goes beyond superficial similarity into systematic duplication of creative choices. Legal professionals specializing in gaming intellectual property note that such detailed comparisons strengthen copyright infringement claims significantly.

One prominent example involves the character Nemesis from Hyper Front, who shares not only a nearly identical color palette and hooded aesthetic with Valorant’s Omen, but also embodies similar narrative characteristics as a “mysterious, ninja-like stealth character” with concealed facial features and luminous eye effects. Notably, court filings indicate that NetEase had previously implemented a redesign of Nemesis, suggesting the company was aware of the similarities and attempted to mitigate them.

The lawsuit extends these comparisons across multiple characters, including parallels between Sage and a character named Elixir, both featuring East Asian design influences and comparable costume elements. Similarly, Killjoy’s distinctive personality and visual presentation find echoes in Hyper Front’s Sentinel character, who shares not only a “laid-back attitude” but also identical outfit details and combat stances.

Beyond visual design elements, Riot’s legal team has documented extensive similarities in gameplay mechanics and character abilities. The legal filing identifies multiple ability systems that appear to function identically between the two games, raising questions about the boundaries between inspiration and infringement in competitive gaming.

Both titles feature characters utilizing bow and arrow mechanics to deploy reconnaissance bolts that reveal enemy positions upon impact. This specific mechanic, involving both the delivery method and tactical function, represents one of the more detailed comparisons in the lawsuit.

The healing systems in both games demonstrate additional parallels, with characters capable of restoring health from defeated opponents. Game design experts note that while healing mechanics are common in shooters, the specific implementation details cited in the lawsuit suggest more than coincidental similarity.

Fire-based abilities represent another area of overlap, with both games including characters who can generate walls of flames for area denial and tactical positioning. Industry analysts suggest these mechanical similarities could be more legally significant than visual design elements alone.

Valorant’s development timeline provides important context for the legal dispute. Riot Games initially unveiled the tactical shooter in autumn 2019, with closed beta testing commencing in 2020. The company publicly confirmed development of a mobile version in summer 2021, signaling its expansion strategy into the mobile gaming market.

Hyper Front’s emergence closely followed Riot’s mobile announcement, entering open beta testing in August 2021 before its full launch later that year. This timing has become a focal point in the legal arguments, with Riot suggesting the parallel development was not coincidental.

The competitive mobile gaming market has seen increasing tensions around intellectual property, with developers balancing inspiration against imitation. Market analysts note that successful PC-to-mobile transitions represent significant revenue opportunities, increasing the stakes in such copyright disputes.

Riot Games’ legal representative, Dan Nabel, articulated the company’s position clearly: “All of our creative choices are mirrored in NetEase’s game. We don’t think that changing the color of a character ability or slightly modifying the visual appearance changes the fact that it’s copyright infringement.” This statement underscores Riot’s argument that the similarities extend beyond superficial elements to fundamental creative decisions.

The lawsuit’s primary demand—complete shutdown of Hyper Front—represents an aggressive legal stance that could establish important precedents for the gaming industry.

Legal experts following the case suggest it could influence how courts evaluate copyright in complex game systems involving multiple interconnected creative elements. The outcome may clarify the legal boundaries between competitive market behavior and intellectual property infringement in the rapidly evolving gaming landscape.

As the gaming industry continues to expand, particularly in the mobile sector, such cases highlight the increasing importance of robust intellectual property strategies. Companies face the challenge of protecting their creative investments while navigating the fine line between market competition and copyright protection.

No reproduction without permission：Games Guides Website » Riot Games is suing Valorant copycat game Hyper Front Riot Games files international lawsuits against NetEase over Valorant copyright infringement in Hyper Front