這起「騰訊遭索尼控告抄襲」的事件，被視為近年全球遊戲產業中最具代表性的智慧財產權爭議之一。核心爭議來自騰訊旗下團隊開發的動作冒險遊戲《荒野起源》，被指在整體概念與視覺呈現上，與索尼互動娛樂的招牌IP《地平線》（Horizon）系列存在高度相似之處，從而引發法律行動，並最終以保密和解收場。

事件的起點可追溯至2024年底，當時騰訊首度公開《荒野起源》的預告影片與遊戲資訊。影片釋出後，很快在玩家社群與遊戲媒體間引發熱烈討論，原因並非遊戲品質本身，而是其世界觀與美術風格與《地平線》系列過於接近。無論是「人類文明崩壞後的後末日世界設定」、以動物為原型的巨大機械生物設計，還是角色服裝、配色與整體氛圍，都被認為與《地平線 零之曙光》及《地平線 西域禁地》高度雷同。這種相似性已不僅止於靈感層級，而是讓不少玩家直言難以分辨兩者差異。

在正式提告之前，索尼並非立刻訴諸法律手段。根據後續流出的業界資訊，索尼法務團隊曾多次透過正式管道向騰訊發出警告，要求其正視遊戲內容可能涉及侵權的問題，並希望對方能在開發階段進行調整，以避免衝突。然而，騰訊方面並未中止開發計畫，相關宣傳與測試資訊仍持續釋出，這也被索尼解讀為未正面回應其關切。

在多次溝通未果後，索尼於2025年7月正式在美國加州法院提起訴訟，控告騰訊及其相關子公司侵犯著作權與商標權。索尼的訴狀中強調，《地平線》系列並非僅是單一元素，而是一整套高度識別化的世界觀與設計語言，而《荒野起源》在核心概念與具體呈現上已構成實質性近似，可能導致消費者混淆，進而損害其 IP 價值。

面對指控，騰訊方面則採取防禦與反擊並行的策略。騰訊曾公開表示，索尼試圖將「後末日世界」、「機械生物」等屬於遊戲產業中常見的通用設計概念據為己有，此舉有壟斷創意表現的疑慮。在訴訟進行期間，騰訊也曾低調調整《荒野起源》的宣傳頁面，移除部分被認為過於相似的視覺素材，試圖降低爭議熱度，但整體遊戲架構與核心設計並未發生根本性改變，因此未能真正平息外界質疑。

經過約一年的法律攻防與私下協商，雙方最終於2025年12月達成保密和解協議。依照和解內容，索尼正式撤回訴訟，雙方各自承擔已產生的訴訟費用，並同意不對外公開協議細節。作為和解後的實際結果，《荒野起源》隨即從Steam、Epic Games Store等主要平台全面下架，且業界普遍認為，除非進行大幅度重製與內容重構，否則該作未來重新上架的可能性極低。

在公開表態方面，雙方皆保持相對克制。索尼未再對案件細節發表評論，騰訊發言人則僅簡短表示，雙方已透過保密方式解決爭議，未來不再就此案多做說明，並釋出「期待未來合作機會」的善意訊號，顯示雙方並未希望讓此次衝突演變為長期對立。

從產業角度來看，這起案件具有多重象徵意義。對索尼而言，事件清楚展現其對《地平線》這一核心IP的高度重視與強硬保護立場，即便對手是資金與體量同樣龐大的騰訊，也不惜投入時間與資源捍衛自身創作成果。這不僅是法律行動，更是對全球市場釋放的明確訊號。對騰訊來說，選擇和解雖意味著承擔龐大的開發成本損失，但相較於長期訴訟與潛在的巨額賠償風險，仍屬相對理性的商業決策。同時，保密協議也在一定程度上避免更多負面輿論與品牌傷害。

更廣泛而言，此案在全球遊戲圈引發對「致敬」與「抄襲」界線的深刻討論。它提醒開發者，在靈感借鑑與創意再詮釋之間，必須保持足夠距離與原創性，否則即便遊戲尚未正式上市，也可能因侵權風險而被迫中止。這起風波最終落幕，但其對產業規範與創作倫理的影響，仍將持續發酵。

The dispute commonly referred to as “Tencent being sued by Sony for plagiarism” has become one of the most representative intellectual property controversies in the global game industry in recent years. At the heart of the case was Tencent’s action-adventure title Wilderness Origin, which Sony Interactive Entertainment alleged bore striking similarities to its flagship Horizon series. The controversy ultimately escalated into legal action and concluded with a confidential settlement, bringing the case to a close.

The origins of the dispute can be traced back to late 2024, when Tencent released the first promotional trailer and basic information for Wilderness Origin. Almost immediately after its reveal, the game sparked intense discussion among players and gaming media, not because of its gameplay quality, but due to how closely its overall concept and visual style resembled Sony’s Horizon franchise. Elements such as a post-apocalyptic world following the collapse of human civilization, massive animal-like mechanical creatures roaming the landscape, and even character designs, color palettes, and overall atmosphere were widely perceived as nearly indistinguishable from Horizon Zero Dawn and Horizon Forbidden West. Many players openly commented that the similarities went far beyond inspiration and made it difficult to tell the two properties apart.

Before turning to litigation, Sony did not immediately pursue legal action. According to later industry sources, Sony’s legal team had repeatedly issued formal warnings to Tencent through official channels, urging the company to address potential infringement concerns and to make adjustments during development to avoid conflict. However, Tencent did not halt development, and promotional activities and testing information continued to be released. This was interpreted by Sony as a failure to respond meaningfully to its concerns.

After these warnings failed to produce results, Sony formally filed a lawsuit in July 2025 in a California court in the United States, accusing Tencent and its subsidiaries of copyright and trademark infringement. In its complaint, Sony emphasized that the Horizon series was not defined by a single isolated element, but by a highly recognizable and cohesive world-building framework and design language. Sony argued that Wilderness Origin showed substantial similarity in both core concepts and concrete execution, potentially causing consumer confusion and damaging the value of its intellectual property.

In response, Tencent adopted a defensive strategy that included counterarguments. Tencent publicly stated that Sony was attempting to monopolize common game design elements such as post-apocalyptic settings and mechanical creatures, which are widely used concepts across the industry. During the course of the lawsuit, Tencent quietly modified Wilderness Origin’s promotional pages, removing certain images that were criticized for being overly similar to Horizon. These changes, however, did not alter the game’s fundamental structure or creative direction and failed to calm the broader controversy.

After nearly a year of legal proceedings and behind-the-scenes negotiations, the two companies reached a confidential settlement in December 2025. Under the terms of the agreement, Sony withdrew the lawsuit, and both parties agreed to bear their own legal costs. The specific details of the settlement were not disclosed. Following the settlement, Wilderness Origin was promptly removed from major platforms such as Steam and the Epic Games Store. Industry observers generally believe that the likelihood of the game being relisted is extremely low unless it undergoes extensive redesign and redevelopment.

Public statements following the settlement were notably restrained. Sony declined to comment further on the case, while a Tencent spokesperson confirmed only that the dispute had been resolved through a confidential agreement and that no additional public commentary would be provided. The spokesperson also expressed hope for potential future cooperation, signaling that neither side wished for the conflict to evolve into a prolonged confrontation.

From an industry perspective, the case carries significant symbolic weight. For Sony, it clearly demonstrates a firm stance on protecting the Horizon franchise as a core intellectual property, showing a willingness to pursue legal action even against a company as large and influential as Tencent. The lawsuit was not merely a legal maneuver but a strong message to the global market regarding Sony’s commitment to safeguarding its creative assets.

For Tencent, opting for settlement meant absorbing substantial development losses, but it avoided the risks of a prolonged legal battle and the possibility of massive financial damages. The confidentiality of the agreement also helped limit reputational damage and further negative publicity.

More broadly, the case reignited widespread discussion within the gaming industry about the boundary between “homage” and outright “copying.” It serves as a reminder to developers that while drawing inspiration is a natural part of creative work, maintaining sufficient originality and creative distance is essential. Even before a game’s official release, excessive similarity can result in serious legal consequences and force a project to be shelved. Although the dispute has formally concluded, its influence on industry standards and creative ethics is likely to resonate for years to come.