Drifter Entertainment Files Amended Response in Blockchain Game Dispute

News | April 9, 2024 By:

On Friday, March 15, 2024, game development studio Drifter Entertainment filed its first amended answer and affirmative defenses to counterclaims filed by Blockchain Game Partners (BGP), also known as Gala Games, in an ongoing lawsuit.

Drifter Entertainment, a Delaware-based company, and Gala Games, a Wyoming-based publisher known for blockchain-based games, had signed an agreement in January 2022 for Drifter to develop a game called “Superior” for Gala. Under the terms of the contract and a subsequent amendment, Gala paid Drifter a total of $8.75 million to develop the game.

However, a dispute arose between the two companies. In its original complaint, Drifter alleged that Gala failed to adequately promote, market, and publish the PC and console versions of Superior after they were delivered, as required by the agreement. Gala then filed counterclaims against Drifter, alleging the company failed to fully complete and deliver the console version of the game on time and in a satisfactory state, and improperly disclosed confidential details from the agreement.

In its amended answer filed on Friday, Drifter denied the allegations made in Gala’s counterclaims. Regarding the console version of Superior, Drifter stated it had delivered the game to Gala on July 10, 2023 in satisfaction of what was required in the contract. It acknowledged continuing to fix some minor bugs for a couple of weeks after but maintained this is normal practice in game development.

Drifter also denied Gala’s claims that it improperly terminated key employees without notice. The company explained layoffs were necessary in October due to Gala’s failure to make a $750,000 payment owed upon delivery of the console game. It further said Gala’s lack of support made continued work on the project impossible.

On the allegation of disclosing confidential details from the contract, Drifter admitted to publicly filing the full agreement and amendment as exhibits when it originally sued Gala in October but denied this was a violation, citing legal principles of open court records. It stressed Gala was aware litigation was impending.

In its amended response, Drifter provided 18 affirmative defenses to the counterclaims including failure to state a valid legal claim, unclean hands by Gala, failure to mitigate damages, and full performance of contractual obligations by Drifter except where prevented by Gala. Drifter asked the court for the dismissal of Gala’s counterclaims with prejudice and reimbursement of its legal fees.

Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.