Once Human, No Man’s Sky, and the Fine Line Between Homage and Copying

The sci-fi survival MMO Once Human recently found itself under intense scrutiny after players noticed that a decorative item in its loot crates looked uncannily similar to a structure from No Man’s Sky. What started as a visual comparison quickly grew into a wider discussion about originality, asset reuse, and ethical design in the games industry. In response, Once Human developer Starry Studio pledged to remove and replace the contentious item and to review its internal art policies.

This episode is more than a one-off controversy. It illustrates how community vigilance, social media amplification, and evolving expectations about creative ownership now shape the way online games are developed and maintained.

Background: Two Very Different Sci‑Fi Games Collide

To understand why this comparison drew so much attention, it helps to look at what each game represents:

• No Man’s Sky – A procedurally-generated space exploration game developed by Hello Games, launched in 2016 and transformed by years of free updates. Its base-building systems let players place distinctive structures, including teleporter modules that have become visually iconic within its community.¹
• Once Human – A post-apocalyptic, open-world survival game with MMO elements, developed by Starry Studio. Players scavenge, build bases, and fight bizarre creatures in a ruined near-future Earth. The game leans on a mixture of grounded scavenged tech and surreal cosmic horror aesthetics.

Both games are rooted in science fiction, but their tone and goals differ: one focuses on solitary exploration across galaxies, the other on survival in a shared, hostile world. That’s why it was striking to see fans claim a piece of visual design had apparently crossed from one universe into the other.

The Asset at the Center of the Dispute

The controversy centered on an exercise bike cosmetic available via loot crates in Once Human. On its own, a futuristic exercise bike might seem harmless and generic. The issue was the way the bike’s core structure was presented: a minimalist frame suspended within a thick metal ring.

Players quickly noticed that the silhouette and layout strongly resembled the Base Teleporter Module in No Man’s Sky, a large circular construct that acts as a fast-travel node in bases. Side-by-side screenshots circulated on social media, fueling accusations that the Once Human bike had gone beyond inspiration and into near one-to-one imitation.

Complicating matters, the bike was not simply a free prop. It appeared as a reward in loot-based monetization, which meant Starry Studio was effectively commercializing a design that many believed belonged to Hello Games.

Community Reaction and Sean Murray’s Response

Once the similarities were spotted, fans of both games began sharing comparisons across forums, X (formerly Twitter), and community hubs. The narrative that emerged included several concerns:

• Was this a deliberate copy of an existing asset?
• Was the asset purchased from a third-party marketplace that itself might have infringed?
• Did the monetized context (loot crates) make the situation more ethically problematic?

The discussion eventually reached Sean Murray, the head of Hello Games, who is closely associated with No Man’s Sky’s public identity. His reaction, as reported by gaming outlets, was playful rather than confrontational, suggesting that the “joke” might be on the developer using such a recognizable design. But Murray’s involvement effectively confirmed that Hello Games was aware of the situation, adding weight to community concerns even without a formal legal dispute.

Starry Studio’s Official Statement and Promised Changes

Following sustained coverage by gaming news sites and ongoing commentary from players, Starry Studio issued a formal statement acknowledging the problem and outlining steps it would take. In that response, the studio emphasized three main commitments (as summarized by outlets that received the statement):

• Removal and replacement – The studio pledged to “replace the asset in question” and remove it from the game’s offerings.
• Internal review – It promised a thorough review of its art and design pipeline to understand how such an asset made it into the game.
• Policy strengthening – Starry Studio said it would use the incident to reinforce internal standards to ensure originality and respect for other creators going forward.

The studio also thanked community members who surfaced the issue, framing the feedback as constructive and important for improvement. While this does not answer every question about how the asset was created, it signals that the developer recognizes the reputational risk of being perceived as copying.

Why Visual Similarity Matters in Game Development

Video games are inherently derivative in some respects: genres share mechanics, tropes recur (like red explosive barrels or glowing weak spots), and many designs are informed by decades of sci-fi and fantasy art. Yet there is a legal and ethical line between broad inspiration and near-identical copying of a specific creative work.

From a legal perspective, video games are protected as copyrighted works, and specific art assets—models, textures, animations—are generally treated as original visual art. The U.S. Copyright Office, for example, explicitly recognizes visual art and computer programs as protected categories when they display original authorship.² When one game’s asset appears to closely mimic another’s distinctive, recognizable design, it risks infringing that protection.

Even without a court case, several factors shape community judgment:

• Silhouette – Is the overall outline very similar?
• Proportions – Do the relative sizes and placements of key elements match?
• Unique details – Are there recognizable motifs or components that seem copied, not coincidentally similar?
• Context of use – Is the asset part of monetized content, or presented as a central feature?

In the Once Human case, it was the combination of a highly distinctive ring-and-core design and the monetization context that made the similarities particularly controversial.

Third‑Party Asset Marketplaces: A Hidden Risk

One plausible explanation in cases like this is the use of third‑party asset marketplaces. Many studios, especially those working on large live-service games, purchase art assets or contract work from external creators to accelerate production. This is generally legitimate, but it introduces risk if the sourced assets themselves are not original.

For example, the Unity Asset Store and Epic Games’ Unreal Engine Marketplace explicitly require publishers to respect third‑party intellectual property and warrant that their submissions do not infringe other rights.^3,4 However, enforcement often depends on reports; some infringing content can slip through until it is flagged.

If a studio unknowingly uses an infringing asset acquired from a marketplace or contractor, it can still face community backlash and potential legal issues. This is why many developers put in place internal review processes and style guides to catch lookalikes before they ship.

Common Asset-Sourcing Pitfalls

Ethical and Business Implications for Live‑Service Games

Modern online games rely heavily on ongoing content updates and monetization through cosmetics, battle passes, and loot systems. This model makes trust a critical asset: players need to feel that when they spend money, they’re supporting creative work that belongs to the developer and doesn’t exploit other creators.

Incidents like the Once Human exercise bike can erode that trust in several ways:

• Perceived laziness or opportunism – Fans may read visual copying as a sign that the studio is cutting corners rather than investing in original ideas.
• Brand damage – Once a game becomes associated with copying, future designs are likely to be scrutinized more closely and criticized faster.
• Regulatory and platform risk – If disputes escalate, platform holders and storefronts may become involved, complicating monetization and distribution.

The flip side is that responsible handling of such controversies can strengthen a studio’s reputation. Swift acknowledgement, concrete corrective measures, and transparent communication can signal to both players and peers that the studio takes originality seriously.

How Starry Studio’s Response Fits Industry Norms

While every case is different, Starry Studio’s reaction follows a pattern that has become fairly standard for developers facing asset-copying accusations:

1. Public Statement – Acknowledge the issue and outline immediate steps. This helps defuse speculation and demonstrates awareness.
2. Asset Removal or Replacement – Pull the contentious content from sale or from the game entirely, even before any legal outcome.
3. Internal Audit – Investigate how the asset was created and approved, including vendor chain if applicable.
4. Policy Updates – Implement new checks, training, or sign-off processes for art assets, especially monetized cosmetics.

This approach aligns with broader industry practices where companies seek to show good-faith compliance with copyright obligations and to protect their long-term ability to publish on major platforms and in multiple jurisdictions.

Lessons for Developers: Building a Culture of Originality

The Once Human situation offers some clear takeaways for teams of all sizes:

• Make originality an explicit value – Embedding respect for other creators into a studio’s public identity and internal culture helps guide day-to-day decisions.
• Invest in review processes – Even in fast-moving live-service environments, dedicate time to review new assets, especially those tied to monetization or major updates.
• Document sourcing – Keep records of where assets come from, including marketplace licenses and contractor agreements, to help trace issues if they arise.
• Encourage internal whistleblowing – Make it safe and rewarded for team members to raise concerns when something looks too close to another game.

From a practical perspective, formal intellectual property training can go a long way. Many developers are highly skilled artists or engineers but may have limited exposure to legal frameworks. Clear guidance on what constitutes infringement, what “fair use” does and does not cover, and how contracts allocate risk can reduce accidental copying.

Lessons for Players: How to Evaluate and Respond

Players also play a role in how controversies like this unfold. When evaluating a potential copying case, it can be useful to ask:

• Is the resemblance specific or general? – Similar genres share aesthetics; what matters is whether a design looks uniquely tied to another game.
• Is there a pattern? – One questionable asset might be a mistake; repeated issues suggest systemic problems.
• How did the developer respond? – A quick, transparent corrective action often deserves recognition, even if the initial mistake was serious.

Constructive criticism—highlighting concerns, sharing comparisons, and asking questions—often prompts better outcomes than harassment or personal attacks. In the Once Human case, community members raising the alarm directly contributed to the asset’s removal and to Starry Studio committing to stronger policies.

FAQ: Once Human & No Man’s Sky Asset Controversy

Did Once Human literally copy a No Man’s Sky asset file?

Public reporting and comparisons focus on visual similarity rather than direct code or file reuse. There is no publicly confirmed evidence that Once Human imported the original No Man’s Sky asset file. The concern is that the design appears extremely close in shape and structure to a recognizable No Man’s Sky teleporter, suggesting imitation at the art level.

Is Hello Games taking legal action?

As of current publicly available information from major gaming outlets, there is no indication of formal legal action by Hello Games. The situation has been addressed primarily at the level of community scrutiny, media coverage, and Starry Studio’s voluntary corrective measures.

Will players who obtained the Once Human bike lose it?

Developers typically handle removed cosmetics in a few different ways: disabling their sale but leaving them in inventories, replacing them with revised versions, or offering compensation. Starry Studio has stated it will replace the asset but has not, in widely reported statements, detailed the precise handling for players who already own it. Future patch notes or official announcements would clarify this.

Is it common for games to use third‑party assets?

Yes. Many studios purchase models, textures, and effects from marketplaces or outsource art to external partners. This is a normal part of modern development. The challenge is ensuring that sourced assets are original and properly licensed. Marketplaces typically require contributors to avoid infringing material, but enforcement is imperfect, so studios must perform their own due diligence.

How can players verify if an asset is really copied?

Players usually rely on visual comparison: screenshots, videos, and model analysis. While an exact legal determination requires expert analysis and sometimes court decisions, side-by-side images can make strong cases in the court of public opinion. That said, some similarities are coincidental or generic to certain design tropes, so it’s important to be cautious before assuming intent.

What This Means for the Future of Once Human

For Starry Studio, the exercise bike incident arrives at a critical time, as Once Human tries to establish itself in a crowded landscape of survival and MMO titles. The way the developer handles this and any future controversies will help shape whether players see the game as a creatively ambitious project or as one that leans too heavily on others’ work.

The studio’s decision to replace the asset and publicly commit to stronger policies is a step toward rebuilding confidence. If followed by consistent, transparent practices—such as clear patch notes, visible improvements in art direction, and ongoing engagement with the community—it can turn a misstep into a turning point.

For the broader industry, the episode reiterates a simple but vital lesson: in an era of high‑resolution screenshots, social media virality, and passionate fandoms, there is virtually no room for ambiguous asset sourcing. Originality isn’t just an artistic ideal; it’s a practical necessity for long‑term success.