Yes. The Hunger Games and Battle Royale are both books-turned-to-films that feature a group of teenagers who are forced to kill each other. Yes, this means that Games and Royale have similar premises, and thus, share similar ideas and concepts.
But, is it really too much to ask that nobody internet shouts, "LOL! BATTLE ROYALE RIPOFF!!!" anytime The Hunger Games is brought up.* I mean, asides from the fact that there are enough differences between the two stories (1. the Hunger Games are televised and controlled to maximize the entertainment factor, and thus, forces players to not just survive, but also to put on performances own to gain audience support, whereas in Battle Royale, the competition is held on an island where no outside media can watch, so unlike Games, there is no audience/performance factor for the kids. 2. Unlike in Battle Royale, the tributes in Games are given time to train. This makes the Hunger Games more fair, while part of what made Royale shocking to watch was how obviously unfair it was.) to keep one from being a rip off of the other (for more info, see <http://io9.com/5888124/did-the-hunger-games-really-rip-off-battle-royale>), but honestly?
It's just really annoying.
Quit thinking that a.) you're the first person to point out the similarities and b.) you're clever for doing so.
*I'm aware that I may just be looking at the wrong parts of the internet. But I can't help but wonder if one reason for people bringing up Battle Royale so often is that people feel threatened by the idea that a movie whose story is primary aimed at teenage girls/young women is not only extremely popular, but has the potential to both be really good (and based on the early review, the movie is really good) and muscle in on a medium that is supposed to be "guy territory." Not saying this is the reason, but it could be one.