Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
Very surprised to hear this but Crytek have taken on Kevin Minnick of Skadden as representation against CIG....

From the documents which can be read at https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
"Crytek and Defendants agreed to preliminary license terms, and Crytek invested significant time and expense in creating impressive demonstrations and proofs-of-concept that were used to persuade the public to contribute financially to a "crowdfunding" campaign to support development of the video game."

Some other interesting bits listed here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/384948-Star-Citizen-Discussions-v7?p=6210060&viewfull=1#post6210060

Hopefully this gets settled asap.

JamesGoblinbartoni33FrodoFraginsXodicklash2defBabuinix
«13456753

Comments

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2017
    hmm that is being discussed around yeah, need to wait to see once there is in-depth input from both sides in this to know exactly what's up.

    It seems Crytek even contests the right of CIG to have moved Star Citizen to Lumberyard because claim one agreement where they didn't permit it. 

    Like they for some reason also have no right to develop SQ42 because it was only "one game" (Star Citizen).

    And really claim the bug-smashers videos are a breach of contract because they show the game editor, okay then. O_o

    Should wait and see how is this settled.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
    MrMelGibsonandredoc
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited December 2017
    It also states that CIG violated the agreement when they announced SQ42 would be sold as a separate, stand-alone game.  Interesting.

    image
  • OrinoriOrinori Member RarePosts: 751
    TalonsinBabuinixMrMelGibsonTsiyaSinsaiklash2def
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Reading through the document, Crytek is also claiming CIG poached the employee who negotiated the GLA on behalf of Crytek.  They submit that Ortwin should have recused himself from negotiating on the side of CIG, though I'm not privy to details of why that would be necessary.

    I wonder where it will go from here.  It seems that, if the documents wording from the GLA is accurate, they at least have a good case on CIG's decision to use the engine for two titles instead of the one agreed upon.

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2017
    It also states that CIG violated the agreement when they announced SQ42 would be sold as a separate, stand-alone game.  Interesting.
    They are even salty about the bug-smashers episodes where they show a dev fixing bugs on the game editor.

    It seems that is also a breach of contract because "confidential stuff", gg lol

    I wonder where it will go from here.  It seems that, if the documents wording from the GLA is accurate, they at least have a good case on CIG's decision to use the engine for two titles instead of the one agreed upon.
    If the "only one game" license is true then that where I find they have the case because CIG started letting the SQ42 title to be bought separately, if so CIG may look into a settling such dispute.
    MadFrenchie
  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,587
    Ah, so this is the SQ42 announcement that Bubuinix was bragging about in the other thread.  Neat.

    The accountant I am is very happy that CiG might need to present their financials from this.  I work for a not-for-profit charity and even they need to release financials to ensure to their donars that they are spending responsibly but CiG doesn't need to do the same for its backers.  It's about time that changed.

    Wow, CiG really went whole-ham on this lawsuit (not that that's surprising. You're supposed to sue for everything and the kitchen sink when you bring up a suit).  From what people are saying in that thread and from what I can tell, it seems like they actually have a good case on most points, too.

    ...Merry Christmas!

    Have fun.
    kikoodutroa8SinsaiMaxBaconBabuinix
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,217
    edited December 2017
    1st page!


    edit- That's why they started selling land! 
    Post edited by bcbully on
  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    edited December 2017
    Quick question:

    Would you, as a monetary backer of this game, be OK with CIG using backer money to fight this lawsuit? If by losing it might mean the game doesn't get released?

    Yes I know they (should) already have lawyers on retainer but I'm just curious. If CIG did a telethon selling "Crysis sucks" skins for your ship or whatnot would you be OK with it? My answer would be No because mismanagement has already cost this project enough money. But then again I wouldn't want to see the game go tits up either.

    EDIT: I see they are only going for $70k so that would be a drop in the bucket to CIG.
    xNIAx1

    Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.


  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,891
    It sounds to me like SC is just ignoring their leeching of Crytek and doing whatever they please knowing their are terms and agreements to adhere to.
    Sp Crytke is like who whoa wait one minute,your not using us to promote your game for free and making spin offs ,sub games off the same agreement.

    Imo the SC team would have fully known they are operating illegally and imo are ,so now it comes down to proving negligence,terms and money owed if any.

    Also mentioned is a former player is in the news because his 24k refund has not been completed nor the legal fees he incurred taking on CIG for the refund.

    Personally i did quite a bit of research and no developer has to give anyone's money back if they don't want to unless of course you can prove misleading information or a form of deceptive marketing practice.CIG did  pay some ,so i to me it pretty much says CIG is operating under very shotty terms/practices to the point of operating illegal,otherwise they don't have to refund any money.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2017
    bartoni33 said:
    Quick question:

    Would you, as a monetary backer of this game, be OK with CIG using backer money to fight this lawsuit? If by losing it might mean the game doesn't get released?

    Yes I know they (should) already have lawyers on retainer but I'm just curious. If CIG did a telethon selling "Crysis sucks" skins for your ship or whatnot would you be OK with it? My answer would be No because mismanagement has already cost this project enough money. But then again I wouldn't want to see the game go tits up either.

    There isn't much of an option. If there's a settling obviously Crytek would be looking for money here, if it goes to court, it costs money to both.

    But there's absolutely no idea at this stage of the severity, the strength of the accusations and the costs that it might involve in the first place, so all one can do is wait and see.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    edited December 2017
    MaxBacon said:
    It seems that is also a breach of contract because "confidential stuff", gg lol

    That's perfectly fair though. If CIG aren't willing to abide by the terms of the contract that's entirely on them regardless of how silly it might seem. All they've done is show that they are willing to flaunt the license they were granted, it's all the little things that add up in a courtroom.
    bartoni33Octagon7711PhryMrMelGibsonNephethBabuinix
  • bartoni33bartoni33 Member RarePosts: 2,044
    MaxBacon said:
    bartoni33 said:
    Quick question:

    Would you, as a monetary backer of this game, be OK with CIG using backer money to fight this lawsuit? If by losing it might mean the game doesn't get released?

    Yes I know they (should) already have lawyers on retainer but I'm just curious. If CIG did a telethon selling "Crysis sucks" skins for your ship or whatnot would you be OK with it? My answer would be No because mismanagement has already cost this project enough money. But then again I wouldn't want to see the game go tits up either.

    There isn't much of an option. If there's a settling obviously Crytek would be looking for money here, if it goes to court, it costs money to both.

    But there's absolutely no idea at this stage of the severity, the strength of the accusations and the costs that it might involve in the first place, so all one can do is wait and see.
    I ask because of ExpressoGate and BigDoorGate etc. Some I was OK with others I was not.
    Babuinix

    Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.


  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    I just saw something about this on the main forums.  A guy was complaining about his thread discussing the matter being deleted with no PM to him telling him why.  They should know by now that something as big as this can't be deleted out of existence.
    MrMelGibson

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 3,694
    Ah, so this is the SQ42 announcement that Bubuinix was bragging about in the other thread.  Neat.

    The accountant I am is very happy that CiG might need to present their financials from this.  I work for a not-for-profit charity and even they need to release financials to ensure to their donars that they are spending responsibly but CiG doesn't need to do the same for its backers.  It's about time that changed.

    Wow, CiG really went whole-ham on this lawsuit (not that that's surprising. You're supposed to sue for everything and the kitchen sink when you bring up a suit).  From what people are saying in that thread and from what I can tell, it seems like they actually have a good case on most points, too.

    ...Merry Christmas!

    Have fun.
    owww I see what you did there!

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Octagon7711MrMelGibsonKyleranBabuinix
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    Crytek probably need money... they've not been doing too well these last few years iirc...
    BabuinixAsm0deus
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2017
    That's prefectly fair though. If CIG aren't willing to abide by the terms of the contract that's entirely on them regardless of how silly it might seem. All they've done is show that they are willing to flaunt the license they were granted, it's all the little things that add up in a courtroom.
    Is it not fair to show the engine editor? It's like claiming they are leaking code, that would never happen within a reasonable way of seeing it as a breach of contract, it's far from contextual. If that was ever the case... yeah; but a good lawyer in US can make anything happen so gg
    Kyleran
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    It seems like they always have extra drama around conventions and holiday sales times.
    Babuinix

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • EponyxDamorEponyxDamor Member RarePosts: 733
    I would honestly hate to see this cause SC/CIG trouble, because as overly ambitious as the game is, I am genuinely interested in the finished product. However, these actions speak to the level of professionalism of CIG. Did they really think that Crytek would be okay with them creating two games with a license that only actually covers one game? If your contract to use proprietary information/processes says that you only have allowance to create X but you instead choose to create X & Y, and also show off the proprietary information used in the process, that is not alright. Furthermore, if they can't even manage basic procedure to obtain a license to create two separate games, it does not really speak well to the management of other departments.

    I'm sure we will get droves of people defending CIG and bashing Crytek now, but really, the onus to follow the contract they entered in to is on CIG; it is not Crytek's responsibility to allow CIG to take liberty with their engine. If CIG breaks the terms of the contract, Crytek has every right (and obligation) to seek recompense. If they don't, it leaves them open to other companies doing the same thing.

    CIG is "indie" (kinda, if you really want to stretch the definiton), but that does not exempt them from basic developer responsibilities.
    bartoni33LucienRene
  • OrinoriOrinori Member RarePosts: 751
    If they sell access to Star Marine only would that make it a 3rd game?
    If they sell access to Arena Commander only would that make it a 4th game?

    I don't know

    Armchair Lawyers assemble!
    MadFrenchieMrMelGibson
  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 3,066
    Another gibberish no nothing,
    It seems like they always have extra drama around conventions and holiday sales times.
    Drums up awareness and increases sales ;) Spread some controversy out of nothing and get people talking about the game close to a huge Show/Sale. After a week or so nobody remembers the drama and the money keeps rolling for CIG. Smart tactic with humours results for the haters. :D

    Same thing happened when the:

    > Counts Loan surfaced: https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/466276/cig-deal-with-coutts-co/p1

    > $45k refund (fake): https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/468158/45-000-refund-allegedly#latest

    etc... Drama is the fuel that ignites Star Citizen continuous funding. B)



  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Must show splash screen when marketing the game - is the game currently being marketed though? 

    One game not two? The fact that nothing different from what was planned is being developed could be a factor. I suppose CIG could offer a combined SC / SQ42 package - without a SC ship!

    Can't link up with Limberyard - that one is interesting though. Wonder what Amazon think?

    Some of this stuff does seem a stretch on Crytech's part - although it sounds like a storm in a teacup in the big scheme of things. Priority for SC has to be to get 3.0 out to alpha.


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    The new bug-smashers was just posted



    Now we must wonder...


    hmmm!
  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,392
    Perfect timing by CryTech. Waited long enough to maximize sales and then strikes while there is still money to get.

    Have to give them credit: Striking for optimal damage/profit ratio.

    Someone must really have pissed them off...
    Babuinixkikoodutroa8Asm0deus
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,275
    edited December 2017
    hfztt said:
    Someone must really have pissed them off...
    Just not enough to pay their employees heh

    They have been trying to survive, just by not developing new games, whelp.
  • kikoodutroa8kikoodutroa8 Member RarePosts: 560
    Crytek wants CIG's "ground breaking" tech lol.
    Babuinix
This discussion has been closed.