It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Maybe they thought that Crytek was going to go bankrupt and thus not be a problem any more. You'd have to be ridiculously arrogant and short-sightedto believe such a thing, but well, Chris Roberts and co are quite arrogant and short-sighted, and the choir of SC fanboys possibly only elevated those feelings.Phry said:Since C.I.G has a lawyer on the team, it begs the question of how this even happened in the first place, they must have looked at the contract after all, so why is this even happening? If this goes badly against C.I.G then it could literally destroy the company, how did the ball get dropped this badly?
People vote about it having the worse business model and the only thing you can do is point out it's not an MMORPG (even though it is, despite how you keep twisting definitions as needed to suit your agendas). Star Citizen fanboys sure love derailing and deflecting things.Erillion said:Funny that by its own definition since the start of the project Star Citizen is NOT an MMO. Making that MMORPG vote somewhat futile.
Didn't I just say your posts are just nothing but trying to write off everyone else's posts? Now you go and prove me right by saying we should all write off this entire thread. That was a rhetorical question by the way, but I'm sure telling you that isn't going to stop you from answering with the same thing over and over again anyways.MaxBacon said:Nope, very much on the topic of this thread. Your substance here is pages of speculation over something you don't actually know, neither does anyone else here at this point. This thread can get to 100 pages that its substance will be its lack of substance for the most part until now.Tiamat64 said:So now you've derailed the topic into being about what you like to see. Not surprising at all. But it only just confirms what we were just talking about. That your posts are just trying to write off everyone else's posts instead of offering anything of substance.
Lumberyard is legally considered a different entity from CryEngine. Different trademarks, different license agreements, different owners, different anything-that-has-to-do-with-legality. That's all that matters. If Lumberyard came and stabbed you in the gut, you'd be pressing charges against Amazon and Lumberyard, not Crytek and not CryEngine, because Lumberyard is entirely Amazon's and an entirely separate legal entity from Cryengine even if both use the same knife fighting style (and CryEngine was Lumberyard's sensei). The complaint isn't about the code being used (in this case. The portion about the code being sent to Facetek and Bugsmashers has nothing to do with Lumberyard). It's about who profits. Amazon profits from Lumberyard exposure. Crytek profits from Cryengine exposure. The contract exclusitivity clause was clearly meant to protect Crytek's profits on that matter and it's not exactly an easy thing to screw up so the odds of CiG getting away with "Lumberyard uses the same code!" excuse is pretty much nonexistent because it's not about the code. It's about the owners of the engine and their interests (Amazon in Lumberyard's case and Crytek in Cryengine's case).gervaise1 said:The part about only using their engine i.e. CryEngine would, subject to any caveats, prevent them using Unity etc. for sure. The "engine" bit in LY though is still CryEngine - would you dispute this? Now a court may decide it is a "different" engine but I don't think its clear cut. And all the other stuff that Amazon has added has the same status as "bespoke code" - which no one says they cannot add.
Skadden. The choice of where to file would likely be Skadden's doing, not Crytek. You know, one of the top rated law firms in the world once described by Forbes as the most powerful law firm on Wall Street?Torval said:
Crytek doesn't strike me as a particularly competent company. They filed in California instead of Texas. They should have filed in Texas.