The authors of The Muller-Powell Principle accused the publisher of stealing the rights to the game

Director of Three Dots Games, Artem Perevoz, wrote an extensive (80 pages) open letter detailing the misconduct of the publisher Take Aim Games. According to him, the company failed to fulfill its obligations, delayed payments to developers for months, and ultimately appropriated the rights to the puzzle game The Muller-Powell Principle. The other party disagrees with the allegations — here's the situation from both perspectives.

The Muller-Powell Principle

The Position of Three Dots Games

According to Perevoz, the relationship between the studio and Take Aim Games began in the fall of 2022. At that time, a representative of the publisher — Alexander Kompanets, who is also one of the developers of ATOM RPG, — praised the trailer for The Muller-Powell Principle. Soon, the developers were offered to sign a contract.
One of the main points of the contract concerned revenue shares. Take Aim Games proposed dividing the game's revenue in a 30/70 split in favor of the publisher, with the possibility of increasing the studio’s share once breakeven was achieved. In return, the company promised to finance the project, including paying developers' salaries and handling marketing. Perevoz and his team agreed to this as they had long been seeking a publisher and were simply glad to finally secure funding for the game.
However, shortly before the finalization of the contract, another condition surfaced, which Perevoz claims was not included in the initial version. According to this condition, Three Dots Games would have to surrender exclusive rights to the game if it didn’t break even within a year, or alternatively, agree to receive a share of the revenue only after the publisher's costs and a 15% bonus were recovered. The studio chose the first option. They also agreed to relinquish preferential rights to sequels and spin-offs.
Perevoz states that payment issues arose almost immediately after the partnership began, recurring multiple times for the same reason. He insists that due to an error in the project budget, the publisher still hasn’t transferred some of the money.
The developer claims that communication between the parties was difficult. Organizational issues were typically addressed through Kompanets, who was often unavailable due to illness and other reasons.
Other challenges existed as well. In his letter, Perevoz recalled that the studio was pressured into making changes to The Muller-Powell Principle's gameplay. The developers warned that this could adversely affect the timeline, but the publisher assured them that a minor delay wouldn't be an issue. However, the game's release was postponed three times — each time, according to Perevoz, amid a scandal. For instance, Take Aim Games threatened to reduce revenue shares and take over the project themselves.
Eventually, the revenue share was indeed reduced: from 30% to 25%.
It is reported that Take Aim Games only began promoting the game fully on its release day — November 29, 2023. Allegedly, the company described this as an experimental "From Zero to Hero" approach.
The methods chosen unsettled the studio. Perevoz cited the publisher's use of bots to inflate traffic and reviews, adding incorrect tags on the Steam page, and negotiating with niche streamers instead of the promised major influencers. As a result, only a thousand copies of The Muller-Powell Principle were sold on the first day.
However, Perevoz acknowledged that some marketing efforts were made before release. Nonetheless, they didn't satisfy his team either. Specifically, the developer mentioned that Take Aim Games released an unpolished demo of the puzzle two weeks before a Steam festival without the studio's permission.
Additionally, the developer noted that Take Aim Games had promised to localize the game into several languages by its release, but the puzzle was only launched with Russian and English support. The English translation was done in-house by the studio.
In late December 2023 — a month after the release — the publisher proposed creating a story-driven DLC. Three Dots Games reluctantly agreed, as they needed the money and Take Aim Games planned to pay them salaries. Part of the content creation tasks were taken away from the studio and handed over to freelancers, with whom the game’s authors could not communicate.
According to Perevoz, after the start of DLC development, the publisher almost stopped communicating. It was later discovered that the company had not approved the work plan.
By that time, the developers no longer wanted to support a failing game. When they informed the publisher of this decision, citing a clause in the contract, Take Aim Games objected. The company indicated that formally the "golden build" of The Muller-Powell Principle had yet to be accepted, so the studio would have to continue working on the project.
Moreover, in one conversation, Take Aim Games mentioned that the contract required developers to hand over the game's source files to the publisher upon request, so they could manage the game independently. However, Perevoz notes that the document refers not to source files but to a build.
Take Aim Games and Three Dots Games attempted to negotiate continued cooperation or at least a peaceful resolution to the conflict for some time, but the proposed terms were unsatisfactory for either side.
Ultimately, Perevoz writes, the publisher threatened litigation, and the studio decided to unilaterally terminate the contract. It appears they were unable to recover the game’s costs, so the rights remained with Take Aim Games.

The Position of Take Aim Games

Alexander Kompanets, who oversaw the release of The Muller-Powell Principle at Take Aim Games, published his own statement in response to the developers' letter. Although he no longer works with the company, due to multiple mentions in the accusations, he decided to express his view on the situation.

Kompanets is convinced that the story presented by the studio is full of omissions and distortions, with some statements being far from the truth.

Specifically, Kompanets emphasized that Three Dots Games reviewed several contract options before signing. The proposed 30/70 revenue split was not random. The fact is, The Muller-Powell Principle is essentially a reworked version of the team’s debut game titled Interpoint, which failed to gain popularity. Take Aim Games considered this backstory a risk.

Kompanets also commented that he does not recall a single sprint that the studio completed on time. When it became clear that the puzzle developers would not meet the target release date, the publisher approached the situation with understanding. However, the situation was complicated by the lack of budget for such a scenario, prompting Take Aim Games to propose reallocating future expenses — reducing part of the marketing budget to further fund development, to which the studio agreed.

Kompanets acknowledged that there were challenges with payments. Transferring money to developers abroad was challenging due to sanctions imposed on Russia. In any case, the publisher found ways to resolve the issue and payments were sent.

Nevertheless, towards the end of the collaboration between Take Aim Games and Three Dots Games, tensions between the parties escalated. So much so that the studio did indeed receive a pre-trial claim. The outcome was the closure of the legal entity Three Dots Games in Montenegro — through which the publisher was operating. Kompanets believes that this move was likely made by the developers to avoid the court case.

***

Nearly two years have passed since the release of The Muller-Powell Principle. Three Dots Games has been dissolved, and Take Aim Games, according to its website, may have also paused its activities — The Muller-Powell Principle was the last game it published.

Perevoz insists that he shared this story mainly as a warning to other developers. He also hopes it will help him achieve justice and reclaim the game. No one other than Kompanets from Take Aim Games has publicly commented on the situation. He believes that if the studio had substantial arguments, they wouldn’t have been afraid to take legal action many months ago.