Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Dude that's a loving jpeg. I mean did you seriously have to post that? Why not post the space whale jpeg while you're at it?

You may want to take a look at the tool-set they have to create all kind of creatures - it is shown in the videos. And these are NOT jpgs.

Animal creation with backer participation:







And because you asked for it - The Space Whale :-)




You can also see some creatures here (time stamp 36:42)





Have fun .... Dude

kikoodutroa8

Why do the last video (didnt check the other ones) look nothing like what people are playing atm?

kikoodutroa8

And what happened to the sandworm anyway???

Erillion

kikoodutroa8 said:

Why do the last video (didnt check the other ones) look nothing like what people are playing atm?

Because that was an outlook to the next upcoming patches, shown at Citizen Convention 2017.

However, you can already explore settlements (not full cities) and buildings, can drive around with your hover bike, buy stuff etc.

W.r.t. the sandworm ... the animation is existing ... you might want to ask the dev team where they plan to use this creature (which planet, which situation). Suggestion:  one could try to kneel in the sand of one of the moons, sway back and forth, hit the sand rythmically with the forehead and scream "Shai Hulud" to the sky  while imbibing hallucinogenic substances  ;-)


Have fun

Phry

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Why do the last video (didnt check the other ones) look nothing like what people are playing atm?

Because that was an outlook to the next upcoming patches, shown at Citizen Convention 2017.

However, you can already explore settlements (not full cities) and buildings, can drive around with your hover bike, buy stuff etc.

W.r.t. the sandworm ... the animation is existing ... you might want to ask the dev team where they plan to use this creature (which planet, which situation). Suggestion:  one could try to kneel in the sand of one of the moons, sway back and forth, hit the sand rythmically with the forehead and scream "Shai Hulud" to the sky  while imbibing hallucinogenic substances  ;-)


Have fun

Sounds like saturday night
Not me personally, though the hitting the sand, shouting stuff, imbibing beer etc. sounds about right

CrazKanuk

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

MadFrenchie

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

CrazKanuk

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

MadFrenchie

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

We would need to see the GLA in full to make that kind of assumption.  That likely won't get presented unless there's a hearing.  

Any company that believes they've been wronged should seek such recourse.  To feel they have been wronged and do nothing is ludicrously negligent.  Doesn't mean they're right, but if they can afford the legal representation and the lawyer believes there's a case to be had, they would be dumb not to attempt it.

gervaise1

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

We would need to see the GLA in full to make that kind of assumption.  That likely won't get presented unless there's a hearing.  

Any company that believes they've been wronged should seek such recourse.  To feel they have been wronged and do nothing is ludicrously negligent.  Doesn't mean they're right, but if they can afford the legal representation and the lawyer believes there's a case to be had, they would be dumb not to attempt it.

Most crowdfunded games then, as now, a) don't launch b) raise very small sums of money c) have tiny playerbases (Steam stats show sub-100k). Note: small number of exceptions when it comes to player numbers.

So rather than pushing for a "small payment" upfront + downstream royalties I think Crytek played safe and went with the biggest upfront number they could negotiate. Expecting SC to be a typical crwodfunded attempt at a game. The fable: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Only today those two birds look more attractive.

So - I think - their initial case was that Ortwin "knew" that SC was going to be the exception. Knew that lots of money was going to be raised. And so Crytek should have gotten more. (Time machine?) Hence the - now withdrawn - claim against Ortwin. (To save the court's time - seriously!)

Sour grapes is what it looks like. And given that the value of the deal made with Amazon - for an unlimited number of games - is put at $50m-$80M the 1.8M euro 5 years ago doesn't look that bad.

With the Ortwin claim having been withdrawn continuing looks like trying to save face. So that potential new developers don't get the impression that if they do a deal with Crytek and are sucessful they may find themselves in court .... for not realising they were going to be sucessful!

 

MadFrenchie

I disagree.  Again, Skadden specifically references the definition of Game, for instance, and contends that CIG's quote of it was from an introduction recital, and provided the case law to back up the fact that the recital does not take precedence over the explicit definition listed later on in the contract.  Unless you've seen the portions of the GLA cited by Skadden, I'd be hard-pressed to believe you know what Crytek is doing here.

And that's only one facet of the suit.

Octagon7711

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Dude that's a loving jpeg. I mean did you seriously have to post that? Why not post the space whale jpeg while you're at it?

I was wondering what the pics had to do with the lawsuit when I came to this thread.

Erillion

Octagon7711 said:

I was wondering what the pics had to do with the lawsuit when I came to this thread.

A question was asked ("...can you tell us more about that part of gameplay?..")  ... and answered (with text/picture/video).

Slight detour about what is in "the game" as defined in the GLA that came to light during the opening shots of this lawsuit.


Have fun

TalulaRose

Octagon7711 said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Erillion said:

kikoodutroa8 said:

Babuinix said:

There's no need to buy them, you can always steal them.
Being an actual avatar instead of a vehicle allows for those kind of perks.

You also hinted at "hunting big game" not long ago, can you tell us more about that part of gameplay? tia

You are welcome.


Have fun

Dude that's a loving jpeg. I mean did you seriously have to post that? Why not post the space whale jpeg while you're at it?

I was wondering what the pics had to do with the lawsuit when I came to this thread.

Sometimes the SC shills will spam a wall of pics to try to deflect and bury conversations they don't like.

Vrika

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

We would need to see the GLA in full to make that kind of assumption.  That likely won't get presented unless there's a hearing.  

Any company that believes they've been wronged should seek such recourse.  To feel they have been wronged and do nothing is ludicrously negligent.  Doesn't mean they're right, but if they can afford the legal representation and the lawyer believes there's a case to be had, they would be dumb not to attempt it.

Most crowdfunded games then, as now, a) don't launch b) raise very small sums of money c) have tiny playerbases (Steam stats show sub-100k). Note: small number of exceptions when it comes to player numbers.

So rather than pushing for a "small payment" upfront + downstream royalties I think Crytek played safe and went with the biggest upfront number they could negotiate. Expecting SC to be a typical crwodfunded attempt at a game. The fable: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Only today those two birds look more attractive.

So - I think - their initial case was that Ortwin "knew" that SC was going to be the exception. Knew that lots of money was going to be raised. And so Crytek should have gotten more. (Time machine?) Hence the - now withdrawn - claim against Ortwin. (To save the court's time - seriously!)

Sour grapes is what it looks like. And given that the value of the deal made with Amazon - for an unlimited number of games - is put at $50m-$80M the 1.8M euro 5 years ago doesn't look that bad.

With the Ortwin claim having been withdrawn continuing looks like trying to save face. So that potential new developers don't get the impression that if they do a deal with Crytek and are sucessful they may find themselves in court .... for not realising they were going to be sucessful!

That's idiotic theory.

Crytek's initial complain was that Ortwin's previous work for Crytek caused Ortwin to have "confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage [RSI]"

The confidential information was about Crytek, not about RSI. If RSI had more information about RSI's own game than Crytek did then that's a good business decision, it's not something over which Crytek could take them to court.

kikoodutroa8

Erillion said:

Octagon7711 said:

I was wondering what the pics had to do with the lawsuit when I came to this thread.

A question was asked ("...can you tell us more about that part of gameplay?..")  ... and answered (with text/picture/video).

Slight detour about what is in "the game" as defined in the GLA that came to light during the opening shots of this lawsuit.


Have fun

What I got from these answers is that noone of that is available ingame at the moment. You guys always talk of SC as if it had more features than any other game, and had them better implemented that in any other game, but noone of them are available.
That's why it always look silly when fans compared SC to released products, because the SC they talk about only exists in their head for now.

MaxBacon

Anyway, aside from the cheap trolling on the thread... Another take on Crytek's response:




~~Some bits:

Q: Is RSI a party to the GLA, and thus should be included in the filing, even though they are not a signatory?

A: Nope

Q: Is CIG required to develop Star Citizen and S42 with CryEngine, to the exclusion of all other engines?

A: Absolutely false. The contract is for making a particular game. There is no exclusionary language. That is not how normal contracts work. They are not forbidden from licensing another engine from a competitor, but rather they can't start developing and licensing to others their own game engine

Q: Does the GLA allow them to use CryEngine to develop Star Citizen and Squadon 42?

A: Yes. They are referred to as "related" games in the GLA. CryTek was definitely intending to provide a license for S42 and Star Citizen. S42 was not defined as a feature of Star Citizen

Q: Even if CIG is allowed to stop using CryEngine, do they have to still have CryTek's logo on the splashscreen of SQ42 and Star Citizen?

A: Hell no. That is not how other contracts work, and why doesn't Lumberyard have to do the same?

Q: Was CryTek hiding the GLA in their intial filing, and using small fragments of the GLA to mislead the Court?

A: Very much so. Arguing that the GLA is confidential is absurb, otherwise you would have asked the court to seal it, or provided a copy of the GLA with parts redacted. The GLA still contradicts CryTek's assertions.

(not my list btw)

This one still insists Crytek doesn't have a case on their biggest complaints (engine switch & sq42), in the other side, French said some points are pretty much on the middle as Crytek did muddy the waters when it comes to making parts of the GLA and their meaning open to debate.

gervaise1

Vrika said:

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

We would need to see the GLA in full to make that kind of assumption.  That likely won't get presented unless there's a hearing.  

Any company that believes they've been wronged should seek such recourse.  To feel they have been wronged and do nothing is ludicrously negligent.  Doesn't mean they're right, but if they can afford the legal representation and the lawyer believes there's a case to be had, they would be dumb not to attempt it.

Most crowdfunded games then, as now, a) don't launch b) raise very small sums of money c) have tiny playerbases (Steam stats show sub-100k). Note: small number of exceptions when it comes to player numbers.

So rather than pushing for a "small payment" upfront + downstream royalties I think Crytek played safe and went with the biggest upfront number they could negotiate. Expecting SC to be a typical crwodfunded attempt at a game. The fable: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Only today those two birds look more attractive.

So - I think - their initial case was that Ortwin "knew" that SC was going to be the exception. Knew that lots of money was going to be raised. And so Crytek should have gotten more. (Time machine?) Hence the - now withdrawn - claim against Ortwin. (To save the court's time - seriously!)

Sour grapes is what it looks like. And given that the value of the deal made with Amazon - for an unlimited number of games - is put at $50m-$80M the 1.8M euro 5 years ago doesn't look that bad.

With the Ortwin claim having been withdrawn continuing looks like trying to save face. So that potential new developers don't get the impression that if they do a deal with Crytek and are sucessful they may find themselves in court .... for not realising they were going to be sucessful!

That's idiotic theory.

Crytek's initial complain was that Ortwin's previous work for Crytek caused Ortwin to have "confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage [RSI]"

The confidential information was about Crytek, not about RSI. If RSI had more information about RSI's own game than Crytek did then that's a good business decision, it's not something over which Crytek could take them to court.

I don't think it stupid at all. Crytek themselves in their counter make a big thing about how much money has been raised - now - to develop SC, suggest that they should have had more and basically - but they don't want to waste the court's time! - lay the blame for that at Ortwin's feet.

OK the "detail" they used to try and get rid of Ortwin was the information he had about Crytek but that was just the hook they dangled.

If this is not about money I fail to see what it is about. SC not being published, for example, does Crytek no good at all (another failed development that tried to use the Crytek engine etc.).

MadFrenchie

gervaise1 said:

Vrika said:

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

MadFrenchie said:

CrazKanuk said:

Huh, I just saw this article today. I didn't even know that Crytek USA was still a thing, let alone actually making something. Makes me wonder if this whole lawsuit could just be a posturing thing, trying to extract some bucks to try to keep development going. I mean, let's face it, the funding for any game studio backed by Crytek can't be doing "well". 

Think we've received a little too much information at this point to think Crytek is merely posturing.  CIG's motion to dismiss failed to address all complaints lodged by Crytek, and there seems to be a dispute on contract wording that needs resolved, at the very least.

Well if it was completely without merit then I'm sure there wouldn't be any argument but because of nebulous stuff like interpretation versus intention, I can't help but wonder if they're just looking for a quick settlement to try to push their own game into it's alpha state this month. 

We would need to see the GLA in full to make that kind of assumption.  That likely won't get presented unless there's a hearing.  

Any company that believes they've been wronged should seek such recourse.  To feel they have been wronged and do nothing is ludicrously negligent.  Doesn't mean they're right, but if they can afford the legal representation and the lawyer believes there's a case to be had, they would be dumb not to attempt it.

Most crowdfunded games then, as now, a) don't launch b) raise very small sums of money c) have tiny playerbases (Steam stats show sub-100k). Note: small number of exceptions when it comes to player numbers.

So rather than pushing for a "small payment" upfront + downstream royalties I think Crytek played safe and went with the biggest upfront number they could negotiate. Expecting SC to be a typical crwodfunded attempt at a game. The fable: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Only today those two birds look more attractive.

So - I think - their initial case was that Ortwin "knew" that SC was going to be the exception. Knew that lots of money was going to be raised. And so Crytek should have gotten more. (Time machine?) Hence the - now withdrawn - claim against Ortwin. (To save the court's time - seriously!)

Sour grapes is what it looks like. And given that the value of the deal made with Amazon - for an unlimited number of games - is put at $50m-$80M the 1.8M euro 5 years ago doesn't look that bad.

With the Ortwin claim having been withdrawn continuing looks like trying to save face. So that potential new developers don't get the impression that if they do a deal with Crytek and are sucessful they may find themselves in court .... for not realising they were going to be sucessful!

That's idiotic theory.

Crytek's initial complain was that Ortwin's previous work for Crytek caused Ortwin to have "confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage [RSI]"

The confidential information was about Crytek, not about RSI. If RSI had more information about RSI's own game than Crytek did then that's a good business decision, it's not something over which Crytek could take them to court.

I don't think it stupid at all. Crytek themselves in their counter make a big thing about how much money has been raised - now - to develop SC, suggest that they should have had more and basically - but they don't want to waste the court's time! - lay the blame for that at Ortwin's feet.

OK the "detail" they used to try and get rid of Ortwin was the information he had about Crytek but that was just the hook they dangled.

If this is not about money I fail to see what it is about. SC not being published, for example, does Crytek no good at all (another failed development that tried to use the Crytek engine etc.).

Lol the ado about CIG making money is solely to illustrate that CIG used Crytek's assets to great benefit of their own.  It's a "look, we held up our end and look how much they benefited from it."

It's part of the argument used to establish that CIG enjoyed the benefits of the contract while neglecting their responsibilities.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Lol the ado about CIG making money is solely to illustrate that CIG used Crytek's assets to great benefit of their own.  It's a "look, we held up our end and look how much they benefited from it."

It's part of the argument used to establish that CIG enjoyed the benefits of the contract while neglecting their responsibilities.

Crytek got 1.8million, they gave up royalties and so on, all the success SC has gotten in funding/sales/whatever you want to call it, is not a cake they have a slice on because of the buyout, they gave it away to CIG.

So this will not be them asking CIG money they are owned, that was not CIG's responsibility, is about them having to prove that CIG has, on purpose, caused them financial losses.

gervaise1

MadFrenchie said:

gervaise1 said:

Lol the ado about CIG making money is solely to illustrate that CIG used Crytek's assets to great benefit of their own.  It's a "look, we held up our end and look how much they benefited from it."

It's part of the argument used to establish that CIG enjoyed the benefits of the contract while neglecting their responsibilities.

Not how it comes across to me. Are you seriously suggesting that Crytek is suggesting that the money has been raised on the back of the "spectacular" CryEngine results that CiG have been showcasing for these last 5 years. That would be CryEngine the world's best jpeg editor would it?

Then again given how weak the case seems to be - seems of course - who knows.

Its an attempt to get more money.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Lol the ado about CIG making money is solely to illustrate that CIG used Crytek's assets to great benefit of their own.  It's a "look, we held up our end and look how much they benefited from it."

It's part of the argument used to establish that CIG enjoyed the benefits of the contract while neglecting their responsibilities.

Crytek got 1.8million, they gave up royalties and so on, all the success SC has gotten in funding/sales/whatever you want to call it, is not a cake they have a slice on because of the buyout, they gave it away to CIG.

So this will not be them asking CIG money they are owned, that was not CIG's responsibility, is about them having to prove that CIG has, on purpose, caused them financial losses.

Nothing about what I said claims the Crytek is chasing the funding directly.

It's part of the argument that CIG used the contract to their benefit, so they should definitely have to honor their responsibilities under the contract.

MadFrenchie

gervaise1 said:

MadFrenchie said:

gervaise1 said:

Lol the ado about CIG making money is solely to illustrate that CIG used Crytek's assets to great benefit of their own.  It's a "look, we held up our end and look how much they benefited from it."

It's part of the argument used to establish that CIG enjoyed the benefits of the contract while neglecting their responsibilities.

Not how it comes across to me. Are you seriously suggesting that Crytek is suggesting that the money has been raised on the back of the "spectacular" CryEngine results that CiG have been showcasing for these last 5 years. That would be CryEngine the world's best jpeg editor would it?

Then again given how weak the case seems to be - seems of course - who knows.

Its an attempt to get more money.

Considering that shit wouldn't have been possible without the engine, yea.

Your inevitable response: "They could've used another engine from the start and still did this!  The engine didn't make the game!"

But, they didn't use another engine.  They used Crytek's.  So that shit doesn't matter.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Nothing about what I said claims the Crytek is chasing the funding directly.

It's part of the argument that CIG used the contract to their benefit, so they should definitely have to honor their responsibilities under the contract.

It's is obvious that they are aiming at getting a slice of funding here, or something from CIG that would benefit them financially (like duh). I mean the complaint itself in several points shows to be literal mudslinging to see what sticks.

Money, money, money.

CIG might even have not honored their responsibilities in some aspects, but still, with a no damages clause they have to do more than that, also think this why they changed the argument on that amended complaint to literally say "they did it on purpose", without it claim damages will be a fun game.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Nothing about what I said claims the Crytek is chasing the funding directly.

It's part of the argument that CIG used the contract to their benefit, so they should definitely have to honor their responsibilities under the contract.

It's is obvious that they are aiming at getting a slice of funding here, or something from CIG that would benefit them financially (like duh). I mean the complaint itself in several points shows to be literal mudslinging to see what sticks.

Money, money, money.

CIG might even have not honored their responsibilities in some aspects, but still, with a no damages clause they have to do more than that, also think this why they changed the argument on that amended complaint to literally say "they did it on purpose", otherwise they can't claim damages.

Again, we've discussed the Game definition as one facet that, quite honestly, neither you nor I have the information at this point to indicate whether it's valid or not.

There's no way they could reasonably violate that clause unintentionally if the definition Skadden insists exists elsewhere in the contract does, in fact, point to one game only and not SQ42 as a separate game.  They would basically have to insist Ortwin was totally incompetent.

EDIT- also interested in the no damages clause you mention.  I can't find anything anywhere on the internet mentioning it, either related to this case or not.