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

The head of Three Dots Games, Artem Perevoz, wrote an extensive (80-page) open letter detailing the unfair practices of the publisher Take Aim Games. According to him, the company failed to fulfill its obligations, withheld developer payments for months, and ultimately claimed the rights to the puzzle game The Muller-Powell Principle. The other party disputes the allegations — here's a look at the situation from both perspectives.

The Muller-Powell Principle

The Position of Three Dots Games

As Perevoz writes, the relationship between the studio and Take Aim Games began in the fall of 2022 when a publisher representative, Alexander Kompanets, who is also the founder of the ATOM RPG studio, reached out and praised the trailer for The Muller-Powell Principle. Soon after, they were offered a contract.
A key point of the contract was about the revenue share. Take Aim Games set the revenue split at 30/70 in favor of the publisher, with a possibility to increase the studio’s share once the game broke even. In return, the company committed to financing the project, including paying developer salaries and handling marketing. This arrangement suited Perevoz and his team as they had been seeking a publisher and were simply glad to finally secure funding for the game.
However, just before the contract was finalized, an additional condition emerged which, according to Perevoz, was not in the original version of the contract. It stated that Three Dots Games would need to relinquish exclusive rights to the game if it did not break even within a year or else agree to receive revenue shares only after the publisher’s expenses and an additional 15% surcharge were recovered. The studio chose the first option, also agreeing to part with preferential rights to sequels and spin-offs.
According to Perevoz, payment issues arose almost immediately after collaboration began and occurred repeatedly. He insists that due to a budgeting error, some funds have not yet been transferred by the publisher.
The developer claims communication between the parties was difficult. Organizational matters were usually mediated through Kompanets, who was often unavailable due to illness and other reasons.
There were additional challenges. In his letter, Perevoz recalled that the studio was pressured to change gameplay elements of The Muller-Powell Principle. Developers warned that this could negatively impact timelines, but the publisher assured them that a slight delay would not be problematic. Eventually, the game's release was postponed three times—each time amidst controversy, according to Perevoz. For example, Take Aim Games threatened to reduce the revenue share and take over the project.
Ultimately, the revenue share was indeed reduced: from 30% to 25%.
It is reported that Take Aim Games only began promoting the game fully on the release day—November 29, 2023. The company allegedly labeled this as an experimental "From Zero to Hero" approach.
The studio was uneasy with the chosen methods. Perevoz noted, for instance, that the publisher inflated traffic and reviews using bots, added incorrect tags to the Steam page, and negotiated 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 actions were indeed taken before the release. Despite this, these actions also discontented his team. Specifically, the developer mentioned that Take Aim Games released an unpolished demo version of the puzzle two weeks before a Steam festival it was being prepared for, without the studio's consent.
Additionally, the developer reported that Take Aim Games promised to localize the game into multiple languages by release, but the puzzle was released only with Russian and English support. Furthermore, the English translation was done internally by the studio.
At the end of 2023—one year after the release—the publisher proposed creating a story DLC. Three Dots Games reluctantly agreed as the developers needed the money, and Take Aim Games intended to pay them. Some content creation tasks were taken from the studio and given to freelancers, whom the game’s authors could not contact.
According to Perevoz, after DLC development began, the publisher almost ceased communication. It later emerged that the company disapproved of the work plan.
By that time, the developers no longer wanted to support the failed game. When they notified the publisher about this, referencing a clause in the contract, Take Aim Games objected. The company indicated that formally the "golden build" of The Muller-Powell Principle had not yet been accepted, so the studio would have to continue working on the project.
Furthermore, in one conversation, Take Aim Games mentioned that the contract required developers to surrender the source code to the publisher upon request so they could manage the game independently. However, Perevoz points out that the document refers to the build, not the source code.
Take Aim Games and Three Dots Games attempted to negotiate either continued cooperation or at least a peaceful conflict resolution for some time, but the proposed terms were unsatisfactory for either party.
It all ended, Perevoz writes, with the publisher threatening legal action, leading the studio to unilaterally terminate the contract. It appears the investment could not be recouped, thus the rights to the game remained with Take Aim Games.

The Position of Take Aim Games

Alexander Kompanets, who accompanied 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 at the company, due to multiple mentions in the accusations, he decided to comment on the situation as well.

Kompanets is convinced—there are many ambiguities and distortions in the studio’s account, and some statements are very far from the truth.

In particular, Kompanets emphasized that Three Dots Games reviewed several contract options before signing. The proposed 30/70 revenue split did not come by chance. The reason is that The Muller-Powell Principle is essentially an extensively reworked reissue of the team’s debut game, Interpoint, which did not gain popularity. At Take Aim Games, this backstory was considered a risk.

Kompanets also noted that he does not recall a single sprint completed on time by the studio. When it became clear that the puzzle developers would not finish by the planned release date, the publisher understood. However, the situation was complicated by the lack of a budget for such an event, so Take Aim Games proposed redistributing future expenses—decreasing part of the marketing budget in favor of additional funding for development, which the studio agreed to.

Kompanets acknowledged there were payment issues. Transferring funds to developers abroad was challenging due to sanctions imposed on Russia. In any event, the publisher found ways to solve the problem and payments were sent.

Nevertheless, by the end of the collaboration between Take Aim Games and Three Dots Games, relations had become tense between the parties. Tensions were high enough for the studio to receive a pre-trial claim. The result was the closure of Three Dots Games’ legal entity in Montenegro—the entity with which the publisher worked. Kompanets believes the developers did this precisely to avoid court proceedings.

***

Nearly two years have passed since the release of The Muller-Powell Principle. Three Dots Games has been liquidated, and Take Aim Games, judging by their website, may have also suspended operations—The Muller-Powell Principle was their last published game.

Perevoz insists he shared the story primarily as a warning to other developers. He also hopes it will help him achieve justice and reclaim the game. Aside from Kompanets, no one from Take Aim Games has publicly commented on the situation. He believes that if the studio had substantial arguments, they would not have hesitated to go to court many months ago.