When I create assets using my licensed copies of SolidWorks, those assets are 100% mine.
When you create assets with a licensed game engine, those assets don't belong to you?
That sounds crazy
I think that would depend on the specifics of the agreement, right? I'm not sure. The biggest exposure that jumps out at me in this is the extra game being developed. Wouldn't be a big deal, save for the fact that they are already taking in cash from consumers for both titles.
Crowdfunding is akin to mud on the water.
The crowdfunding aspect definitely muddies the water.
It's pathetic how most (but fortunately not all) SC fanboys across various forums are trying to blow this off as if this was a small inconsequential thing (including Erin himself, apparently), often with pointless ad hominem attacks on Cryptek instead of addressing the case itself or not reading the public legal complaint that's open for everyone to read and doesn't really take that long to do so.
The law firm that Cryptek hired for this is one of the top law firms in the US. They charge at least $500 per hour (but goes above $1,000 per hour in some cases). Considering how important reputation is to a top law firm, they wouldn't be taking up this case if it were a "meritless" case as Erin claims, nor would Cryptek be willing to pay at least $500 an hour if they didn't think this was a case they could win, and win big on.
According to the complaint, the legal notices were being sent to CiG starting around 2 years ago. Presumably CiG and Cryptek already had their discussions about settlements starting a little after that and the time for any more settlements is long over (which was also implied in Erin's statement). So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
It's pathetic how most (but fortunately not all) SC fanboys across various forums are trying to blow this off as if this was a small inconsequential thing (including Erin himself, apparently), often with pointless ad hominem attacks on Cryptek instead of addressing the case itself or not reading the public legal complaint that's open for everyone to read and doesn't really take that long to do so.
The law firm that Cryptek hired for this is one of the top law firms in the US. They charge at least $500 per hour (but goes above $1,000 per hour in some cases). Considering how important reputation is to a top law firm, they wouldn't be taking up this case if it were a "meritless" case as Erin claims, nor would Cryptek be willing to pay at least $500 an hour if they didn't think this was a case they could win, and win big on.
According to the complaint, the legal notices were being sent to CiG starting around 2 years ago. Presumably CiG and Cryptek already had their discussions about settlements starting a little after that and the time for any more settlements is long over (which was also implied in Erin's statement). So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
$500 an hour sounds way too cheap for a top law firm. My divorce lawyer was $365 an hour 20 years ago, mind you he was a good one $260 an hour back then was a run of the mill lawyer.
It's pathetic how most (but fortunately not all) SC fanboys across various forums are trying to blow this off as if this was a small inconsequential thing (including Erin himself, apparently), often with pointless ad hominem attacks on Cryptek instead of addressing the case itself or not reading the public legal complaint that's open for everyone to read and doesn't really take that long to do so.
The law firm that Cryptek hired for this is one of the top law firms in the US. They charge at least $500 per hour (but goes above $1,000 per hour in some cases). Considering how important reputation is to a top law firm, they wouldn't be taking up this case if it were a "meritless" case as Erin claims, nor would Cryptek be willing to pay at least $500 an hour if they didn't think this was a case they could win, and win big on.
According to the complaint, the legal notices were being sent to CiG starting around 2 years ago. Presumably CiG and Cryptek already had their discussions about settlements starting a little after that and the time for any more settlements is long over (which was also implied in Erin's statement). So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
$500 an hour sounds way too cheap for a top law firm. My divorce lawyer was $365 an hour 20 years ago, mind you he was a good one $260 an hour back then was a run of the mill lawyer.
Well, that was the lowest price, which I'd be kinda surprised if Cryptek was paying only that.
... So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
And given Crytek's poor market performance in the last few years, the costs of losing this case could well kill them...
... So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
And given Crytek's poor market performance in the last few years, the costs of losing this case could well kill them...
Maybe a cause for some of their woes is the details in the licensing agreement that they demand.
I make assets with your tools and you own copyright for said assets = take your tools and shove em up your ass.
Out of curiosity, if you are an employee of a company and mess something up (e.g. use an unlicensed image) and your company gets sued for $100k, can the cost be passed on to the employee who messed up?
What if you are designing airplanes and make a mistake with a calculation and the plane crashes. Is the designer responsible, or the company?
Its the company being sued, an employee has nothing to worry about if they didn't break any working rules. Its up to the company to make sure that individual mistakes can be prevented.
If a company design procedure is so poorly done that one person making a calculation wrong cause a plane to crash the company deserves to be sued.
Maybe a cause for some of their woes is the details in the licensing agreement that they demand.
I make assets with your tools and you own copyright for said assets = take your tools and shove em up your ass.
Wait let's imagine a settlement where CIG must stop using "Cryengine" and get rid of them for good.
They wouldn't change anything of big relevance because Lumberyard especially when forked was a copy of CryEngine's code that I would find interesting how could they argue "this code that is the same as Lumberyard's code is Cryengine's, not Lumberyard's", hmmm
Doing some more research,it seems Crytek may still be on the verge of shutting down,so they may be a very weak attempt to get some money but at the same time,if developers are ripping them off,no wonder they don't have the money to pay their employees.
I was very skeptical when NCSOFT bought a 3 pack license from Epic games,then rescinded after one use,i really felt there was some stealing/copyright work done there and that was their true intention. The world is full of illegal activity,anyone thinks it is not inside of gaming is very naive/foolish.
I feel this comes down to SC and their main partner "a lawyer" or some other lawyers have told them they can get away with Sq 42 by using some terms or the way they present it.In otehrwords ,a way to circumvent the law even though they know their true intention was to do this illegal and not pay royalties or proper licensing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
... So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
And given Crytek's poor market performance in the last few years, the costs of losing this case could well kill them...
Yea, if Crytek loses this case and CiG counter-sues for their legal costs back, Crytek might not have any money left to give them.
So I have a hard time believing Crytek didn't know or couldn't control anything about this unless they really are that poorly managed. On the other hand CIG doesn't seem as though it's run like a well oiled machine either.
The relation with Crytek starting to went banana's the moment CIG opens the German studio with a bunch of vets from Crytek after their financial struggles back in 2014.
The relation with Crytek starting to went banana's the moment CIG opens the German studio with a bunch of vets from Crytek after their financial struggles back in 2014.
There's a decent chance "buyout" was not the context that would have protected CiG from this case. Shortly after Erin said that, he then followed up with this:
There's a decent chance "buyout" was not the context that would have protected CiG from this case. Shortly after Erin said that, he then followed up with this:
"Yep we will continue to integrate all the latest changes into SC, our license allows for this also."
I think I know what it meant, it meant that CIG had the power to modify and do all changes they wanted and they did not had to do any sharing and so that it's said the original licenses kinda implied.
There's a decent chance "buyout" was not the context that would have protected CiG from this case. Shortly after Erin said that, he then followed up with this:
"Yep we will continue to integrate all the latest changes into SC, our license allows for this also."
I think I know what it meant, it meant that CIG had the power to modify and do all changes they wanted and they did not had to do any sharing and so that it's said the original licenses kinda implied.
Yea, that was most likely it. It really doesn't protect them from anything in the complaint (that they shared the code with Facetek, that they didn't send Crytek the bug fixes, that they removed the trademarks when they weren't allowed to, and that they weren't allowed to switch to Lumberyard) if what the complaint says about the contract is true, alas.
It's pretty impressive CiG somehow found a way to break the "Don't switch to a different engine" and "Don't use our engine to make more than one game" clauses at the same time (by using an engine that's a combination of a different engine and Cry's engine)
I think Crytech, having taken Amazon's big $$$$$, are looking at a future in which .... they have no future.
That CryEngine did not expect CIG to do a deal with Amazon/Lumberyard.
That Crytech when they did a deal with RSI did not bind them to the use of the Crytech engine for all time - unlikely since developers do sometimes change engines e.g. ZOS and ESO.
Nor did Crytech include words in their contract with Amazon that prevented "any developers who have previously done any work at all whatsoever, whenever in Crytech" from using Lumberyard. Not that Amazon would have accepted that - reportedly it was a lot of money that Amazon paid Crytech.
Now as far as the tech side goes Lumberyard is Crytech (+ Amazon bespoke). Contractually however Lumberyard is Amazon. RSI are using Lumberyard. So RSI will pay Amazon.
And like I said developers do change "engines".
Everything in Crytech's words seems to dance around this - especially as there is no game yet (defence calls DS to testify!!!!!!)
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
Well, the argument Crytek gave to the law firm handling the case, Skadden, must have been really convincing. Skadden wouldn't take the case if Crytek were really going bankrupt and losing the case meant not getting paid, amongst other things like reputation, etc.
I guess its time to sell that super secret resource acerage. This is really serious tho, if i read the legal lingo right CIG will have to stop using anything that can be directly linked to cryengine even things they have adapted from it. That may be very little or it make be sunstantial chunks of the games.
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
Someone mentioned that they had maybe been sending letters for years. Also, my original understanding when I backed (early early) was that S42 was the single player component and there would be an open world experience based on that. . at this point they seem very different but I don't think they were at the time.
Well, the argument Crytek gave to the law firm handling the case, Skadden, must have been really convincing. Skadden wouldn't take the case if Crytek were really going bankrupt and losing the case meant not getting paid, amongst other things like reputation, etc.
As long they are paid, they are in for cases as this that are disputable, mind this can involve Amazon even though you can notice they tried hard to not mention it but still contest the LY switch that involves a contract between CIG and Amazon all falling upon the same game engine this all surrounds. It's not black and white and you only see the complaint claim here, nothing else.
Crytek is not going bankrupt, hundreds of millions of investment from gov were announced less than 1 year ago so they likely have money to spend. But they still decided to close studios and not pay those employees in some countries, like Japan/Indonesia I think, saves them a few bucks.
Well, the argument Crytek gave to the law firm handling the case, Skadden, must have been really convincing. Skadden wouldn't take the case if Crytek were really going bankrupt and losing the case meant not getting paid, amongst other things like reputation, etc.
Oh, drop that, as long they are paid they take the case.
Crytek is not going bankrupt, hundreds of millions of investment from gov were announced less than 1 year ago so they likely have money to spend.
But they still decided to close studios and not pay those employees in some countries, like Japan/Indonesia I think, saves them a few bucks.
The bankruptcy was in response to several others who brought it up as evidence that Crytek wouldn't be a threat to CiG. Crytek does indeed have the money to throw around and allegedly according to the documents was complaining to CiG for several years prior to this, hence the settlement time is probably long gone and over by now.
If the case was really so dead, you'd think Crytek and Skadden would have settled for a settlement or something a year or two ago. As it is, any chance for this lawsuit to be inconsequential have likely long-since passed months ago.
Comments
As far as agreements go, it still sounds crazy
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The law firm that Cryptek hired for this is one of the top law firms in the US. They charge at least $500 per hour (but goes above $1,000 per hour in some cases). Considering how important reputation is to a top law firm, they wouldn't be taking up this case if it were a "meritless" case as Erin claims, nor would Cryptek be willing to pay at least $500 an hour if they didn't think this was a case they could win, and win big on.
According to the complaint, the legal notices were being sent to CiG starting around 2 years ago. Presumably CiG and Cryptek already had their discussions about settlements starting a little after that and the time for any more settlements is long over (which was also implied in Erin's statement). So this is going to court and going to be big even if CiG wins the case. (and even if CiG somehow manages to get all the costs reimbursed, somehow, there are always tons of hidden costs and time costs that don't get reimbursed in those cases anyways.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But didn't stop them from closing out studios in the face of their employees not paying them for months after that gov investment, gg
I don't think they're that bad financially, they would be bankrupt by now without the gov's help that's for sure.
I make assets with your tools and you own copyright for said assets = take your tools and shove em up your ass.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
They wouldn't change anything of big relevance because Lumberyard especially when forked was a copy of CryEngine's code that I would find interesting how could they argue "this code that is the same as Lumberyard's code is Cryengine's, not Lumberyard's", hmmm
I was very skeptical when NCSOFT bought a 3 pack license from Epic games,then rescinded after one use,i really felt there was some stealing/copyright work done there and that was their true intention.
The world is full of illegal activity,anyone thinks it is not inside of gaming is very naive/foolish.
I feel this comes down to SC and their main partner "a lawyer" or some other lawyers have told them they can get away with Sq 42 by using some terms or the way they present it.In otehrwords ,a way to circumvent the law even though they know their true intention was to do this illegal and not pay royalties or proper licensing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
lol
EDIT: FYI, allegedly the Lumberyard engine just says "Engine Error" instead of that
But yeah if you read Erin Roberts in 2014: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2895381/#Comment_2895381 then we are talking about one engine buyout from Crytek, not a simple license, it is expectable if you do a buyout that you have more control to do what you want with the engine.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/95624/squadron-42-production/p2
(third post down)
"Yep we will continue to integrate all the latest changes into SC, our license allows for this also."
It's pretty impressive CiG somehow found a way to break the "Don't switch to a different engine" and "Don't use our engine to make more than one game" clauses at the same time (by using an engine that's a combination of a different engine and Cry's engine)
That CryEngine did not expect CIG to do a deal with Amazon/Lumberyard.
That Crytech when they did a deal with RSI did not bind them to the use of the Crytech engine for all time - unlikely since developers do sometimes change engines e.g. ZOS and ESO.
Nor did Crytech include words in their contract with Amazon that prevented "any developers who have previously done any work at all whatsoever, whenever in Crytech" from using Lumberyard. Not that Amazon would have accepted that - reportedly it was a lot of money that Amazon paid Crytech.
Now as far as the tech side goes Lumberyard is Crytech (+ Amazon bespoke). Contractually however Lumberyard is Amazon. RSI are using Lumberyard. So RSI will pay Amazon.
And like I said developers do change "engines".
Everything in Crytech's words seems to dance around this - especially as there is no game yet (defence calls DS to testify!!!!!!)
More like crying.... What's he going to do with his time now? Actually finish his own decade old mmorpg?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden,_Arps,_Slate,_Meagher_&_Flom
https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/profile/skadden-arps-slate-meagher-flom-llp/overview/3851
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Crytek is not going bankrupt, hundreds of millions of investment from gov were announced less than 1 year ago so they likely have money to spend. But they still decided to close studios and not pay those employees in some countries, like Japan/Indonesia I think, saves them a few bucks.
If the case was really so dead, you'd think Crytek and Skadden would have settled for a settlement or something a year or two ago. As it is, any chance for this lawsuit to be inconsequential have likely long-since passed months ago.