Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

They might also be smart about it and realize them throwing themselves into the middle of a lawsuit that has nothing to do with them might be slightly stupid.

CIG breached their contract (among other things) and I'd be very surprised if amazon involved itself. That would be like an author that sells their books on Amazon being sued for copyright infringement and Amazon stepping in to support the author

What you consider smart here is useless because neither you or I or anyone here know anything about the details of this and over that, only have one side of the story, the complaint's side. lol

Your example is also useless, they are not selling a game on Amazon's store, they have a contractual relationship that implies has a license that falls upon SC, its engine specifically, that Crytek shows to be disputing as well, if you would be surprised if there could be one conflict of interests, I sure wouldn't. lol

Balmong

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

Amazons lawyers might have a look at the claims brought against CIG and tell CIG you're on your own. Just depends on how badly they think CIG fucked up lol

rertez said:

I guess Amazon's legal department have no interest in looking at a client's case that is not related to Amazon. Lumberyard is not a legal consulting service but a set of game dev tools and services given away for free.

Surely they do review, but they have a contract under them that ties to the engine talks Crytek is disputing, if they think Crytek is taking a profit on something they do can take a profit, who is going to get returns from the profits of the game for example, then you sure they have interest on it if they see ways to counter Crytek's intent.

They might also be smart about it and realize them throwing themselves into the middle of a lawsuit that has nothing to do with them might be slightly stupid.

CIG breached their contract (among other things) and I'd be very surprised if amazon involved itself. That would be like an author that sells their books on Amazon being sued for copyright infringement and Amazon stepping in to support the author

Your falling for a common fallacy, CIG isn't guilty just by being sued. The Court of Public Opinion is in fact, not a legally binding institute.


Until the exact details of the contract are made public, if ever, we don't know enough info to judge whether they did breach the contract. There could be escape clauses we don't know about, or even the fact that CIG partnered with a company that is a authorized to distibute a version of CryEngine. In my eyes CIG never stopped working with CryEngine, most people who've used Lumberyard will tell you there isn't too many differences. 

Tiamat64

Whether or not CiG is guilty, it'd be stupid of Amazon to butt in.  That's like saying, "Hey, use our free software and we'll help you out with litigation if you're lucrative enough!"

There's also the question of whether or not Star Citizen actually IS lucrative enough.  It's not like Amazon is going to be sharing in any of Star Citizen's profits nor do they need the exposure and publicity, because they're Amazon.  At most Star Citizen just gives them more advertising revenue from ads, which needs to be weighed against the cost of the lawsuit (and again, any cans of worms they might get for being known as a company that will help out other companies with litigation just because they're using Amazon's free software).

And even if they DO butt in, they aren't going to do it pro-bono.  They're not a charity.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  VERY VERY MUCH the opposite. I don't think it'd sit well with either the backers or Chris Roberts himself if Amazon suddenly had a controlling interest in the game.

There's also the matter of how much Amazon actually CAN help anyways.  What are they going to do, threaten to back out of their lumberyard deal with Crytek this late in the game?  That'd be horrible for both of them and would tell all of Amazon's business partners (you know, the ones in ACTUAL business deals with them, unlike Star Citizen), "Hey, we'll push you around just because you got into a legal argument with someone who's using our free software!"

Amazon and Star Citizen are NOT super best friends.  They're more like acquaintances. If anything, Amazon's probably bigger friends with Crytek.  At most, from the interviews I've been reading regarding the switch to Lumberyard, Star Citizen's people are just "in contact" with Amazon from time to time. Crytek is the one that Amazon's got an actual business deal for the lumberyard software from in the first place (that Star Citizen relies on anyways!).  Who should they side with if forced to (and assuming neither party was found guilty yet)?  The guys they dealt with to get a huge engine from or the guys that are using that engine for free? (although the true correct answer would be "Neither.  It's none of your business. LITERALLY.")

gervaise1

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

Amazons lawyers might have a look at the claims brought against CIG and tell CIG you're on your own. Just depends on how badly they think CIG fucked up lol

rertez said:

I guess Amazon's legal department have no interest in looking at a client's case that is not related to Amazon. Lumberyard is not a legal consulting service but a set of game dev tools and services given away for free.

Surely they do review, but they have a contract under them that ties to the engine talks Crytek is disputing, if they think Crytek is taking a profit on something they do can take a profit, who is going to get returns from the profits of the game for example, then you sure they have interest on it if they see ways to counter Crytek's intent.

They might also be smart about it and realize them throwing themselves into the middle of a lawsuit that has nothing to do with them might be slightly stupid.

Crytek allege that CIG breached their contract (among other things) and I'd be very surprised if amazon involved itself. That would be like an author that sells their books on Amazon being sued for copyright infringement and Amazon stepping in to support the author

Fixed that for you. If this was straightforward it wouldn't involve lawyers. Crytek believe they have a case and obviously CIG don't believe they have done - or intend to do anything that breaches the agreement. (Intend since some of the stuff Crytek allege can only apply if the game is or is about to launch - which some people totally dispute!)

As you say though Amazon may or may not get involved. I suspect they will consider it since there are potential implications for LY. And I believe that it is the change to - and potential ramifications  of - LY which is at the core of this.

MaxBacon

gervaise1 said:
As you say though Amazon may or may not get involved. I suspect they will consider it since there are potential implications for LY. And I believe that it is the change to - and potential ramifications  of - LY which is at the core of this.

If there is any tech sharing between CIG's back to LY depending on the license they have, you can bet it is on the interest of Amazon to not have Crytek trying to push authority over the engine, that is the type of stuff I meant by conflict of interests.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

gervaise1 said:
As you say though Amazon may or may not get involved. I suspect they will consider it since there are potential implications for LY. And I believe that it is the change to - and potential ramifications  of - LY which is at the core of this.

If there is any tech sharing between CIG's back to LY depending on the license they have, you can bet it is on the interest of Amazon to not have Crytek trying to push authority over the engine, that is the type of stuff I meant by conflict of interests.

Crytek's complaint is that CiG switched to a different engine ("different engine" is all that's needed, no authority over Lumberyard necessary, as Lumberyard is already legally a completely different entity from Cryengine), that CiG stopped putting Crytek's promotional logos in CiG's marketting, that CiG is giving code to Facetek and on Bugsmashers, and that CiG is making two games instead of one (Squadron 42 started development before the switch to Lumberyard so it counts as being developed with Cryengine).

There is no need for Crytek to try to push authority over the engine to prove any of those points, and it's clear that Crytek knows this considering that their complaint didn't bring it up.

If anything, in order to prove that CiG switched to a different engine, Crytek WANTS Amazon to have complete authority over Lumberyard.  The more authority Amazon has over Lumberyard that Crytek does NOT, the stronger Crytek's argument that CIG broke the exclusitivity clause.





Separate topic:  Hey, here's a fun snippet from the latest Around the Verse from CiG.  Scroll forward to 21:40 of the video




where he discusses putting data into Cr*obvious cut* Lumberyard.  lol. 

Kefo

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

Amazons lawyers might have a look at the claims brought against CIG and tell CIG you're on your own. Just depends on how badly they think CIG fucked up lol

rertez said:

I guess Amazon's legal department have no interest in looking at a client's case that is not related to Amazon. Lumberyard is not a legal consulting service but a set of game dev tools and services given away for free.

Surely they do review, but they have a contract under them that ties to the engine talks Crytek is disputing, if they think Crytek is taking a profit on something they do can take a profit, who is going to get returns from the profits of the game for example, then you sure they have interest on it if they see ways to counter Crytek's intent.

They might also be smart about it and realize them throwing themselves into the middle of a lawsuit that has nothing to do with them might be slightly stupid.

CIG breached their contract (among other things) and I'd be very surprised if amazon involved itself. That would be like an author that sells their books on Amazon being sued for copyright infringement and Amazon stepping in to support the author

Your falling for a common fallacy, CIG isn't guilty just by being sued. The Court of Public Opinion is in fact, not a legally binding institute.


Until the exact details of the contract are made public, if ever, we don't know enough info to judge whether they did breach the contract. There could be escape clauses we don't know about, or even the fact that CIG partnered with a company that is a authorized to distibute a version of CryEngine. In my eyes CIG never stopped working with CryEngine, most people who've used Lumberyard will tell you there isn't too many differences. 

I haven't fallen into any fallacy. I'd just rather not waste my time writing every possible outcome in my reply so that people don't have a reason to nitpick.

Plus CIG kinda screwed the pooch when they removed the cryengine logo from the game which may have given them a foot to stand on in regards to we are still using cryengine.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

Crytek's complaint is that CiG switched to a different engine ("different engine" is all that's needed, no authority over Lumberyard necessary, as Lumberyard is already legally a completely different entity from Cryengine) 

That's not what the copyright lawyer that reviewed the complaint took from it, he sees Amazon's involvement possible, and I prefer to take the perception of someone who professionally knows of this has from reviewing the documents, understanding how this stuff tends to work. From that to forum armchair lawyering, meh, a sea of opinions and bias on the topic.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

Crytek's complaint is that CiG switched to a different engine ("different engine" is all that's needed, no authority over Lumberyard necessary, as Lumberyard is already legally a completely different entity from Cryengine) 

That's not what the copyright lawyer that reviewed the complaint took from it, he sees Amazon's involvement possible, and I prefer to take the perception of someone who professionally knows of this has from reviewing the documents, understanding how this stuff tends to work. From that to forum armchair lawyering, meh, a sea of opinions and bias on the topic.

If an outsider lawyer reviewing the documents thinks Amazon's involvement is possible, and if Amazon's involvement would be bad for Crytek, don't you think Crytek's even more-expensive lawyer who's in charge of the actual case and where the actual case is his JOB would look to avoid that in every way possible?  If hypothetically Amazon's involvement is possible and also bad for Crytek, I'd trust the guy from what Forbes once described as the most powerful law firm in the world to avoid it even if a lawyer who isn't directly involved in the case says "It's possible."

(of course, there is an alternative scenario where Amazon's involvement wouldn't necessarily be bad for Crytek and thus no avoiding needed, too.  Or where Amazon's involvement was possible but Crytek's lawyer already has that covered)

rodarin

Tiamat64 said:

Whether or not CiG is guilty, it'd be stupid of Amazon to butt in.  That's like saying, "Hey, use our free software and we'll help you out with litigation if you're lucrative enough!"

There's also the question of whether or not Star Citizen actually IS lucrative enough.  It's not like Amazon is going to be sharing in any of Star Citizen's profits nor do they need the exposure and publicity, because they're Amazon.  At most Star Citizen just gives them more advertising revenue from ads, which needs to be weighed against the cost of the lawsuit (and again, any cans of worms they might get for being known as a company that will help out other companies with litigation just because they're using Amazon's free software).

And even if they DO butt in, they aren't going to do it pro-bono.  They're not a charity.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  VERY VERY MUCH the opposite. I don't think it'd sit well with either the backers or Chris Roberts himself if Amazon suddenly had a controlling interest in the game.

There's also the matter of how much Amazon actually CAN help anyways.  What are they going to do, threaten to back out of their lumberyard deal with Crytek this late in the game?  That'd be horrible for both of them and would tell all of Amazon's business partners (you know, the ones in ACTUAL business deals with them, unlike Star Citizen), "Hey, we'll push you around just because you got into a legal argument with someone who's using our free software!"

Amazon and Star Citizen are NOT super best friends.  They're more like acquaintances. If anything, Amazon's probably bigger friends with Crytek.  At most, from the interviews I've been reading regarding the switch to Lumberyard, Star Citizen's people are just "in contact" with Amazon from time to time. Crytek is the one that Amazon's got an actual business deal for the lumberyard software from in the first place (that Star Citizen relies on anyways!).  Who should they side with if forced to (and assuming neither party was found guilty yet)?  The guys they dealt with to get a huge engine from or the guys that are using that engine for free? (although the true correct answer would be "Neither.  It's none of your business. LITERALLY.")

OMG what if there is a settlement and the settlements only condition is  Chris Roberts and all his cronies have to leave SC and then let Amazon hire some other people to fix it...deja vu all over again. now THAT would be frigging epic.

Tiamat64

rodarin said:

Tiamat64 said:

Whether or not CiG is guilty, it'd be stupid of Amazon to butt in.  That's like saying, "Hey, use our free software and we'll help you out with litigation if you're lucrative enough!"

There's also the question of whether or not Star Citizen actually IS lucrative enough.  It's not like Amazon is going to be sharing in any of Star Citizen's profits nor do they need the exposure and publicity, because they're Amazon.  At most Star Citizen just gives them more advertising revenue from ads, which needs to be weighed against the cost of the lawsuit (and again, any cans of worms they might get for being known as a company that will help out other companies with litigation just because they're using Amazon's free software).

And even if they DO butt in, they aren't going to do it pro-bono.  They're not a charity.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  VERY VERY MUCH the opposite. I don't think it'd sit well with either the backers or Chris Roberts himself if Amazon suddenly had a controlling interest in the game.

There's also the matter of how much Amazon actually CAN help anyways.  What are they going to do, threaten to back out of their lumberyard deal with Crytek this late in the game?  That'd be horrible for both of them and would tell all of Amazon's business partners (you know, the ones in ACTUAL business deals with them, unlike Star Citizen), "Hey, we'll push you around just because you got into a legal argument with someone who's using our free software!"

Amazon and Star Citizen are NOT super best friends.  They're more like acquaintances. If anything, Amazon's probably bigger friends with Crytek.  At most, from the interviews I've been reading regarding the switch to Lumberyard, Star Citizen's people are just "in contact" with Amazon from time to time. Crytek is the one that Amazon's got an actual business deal for the lumberyard software from in the first place (that Star Citizen relies on anyways!).  Who should they side with if forced to (and assuming neither party was found guilty yet)?  The guys they dealt with to get a huge engine from or the guys that are using that engine for free? (although the true correct answer would be "Neither.  It's none of your business. LITERALLY.")

OMG what if there is a settlement and the settlements only condition is  Chris Roberts and all his cronies have to leave SC and then let Amazon hire some other people to fix it...deja vu all over again. now THAT would be frigging epic.

Well, truthfully now that I think about it, I don't see why Amazon would want the game.  It's clearly a slip shod buggy piece of mess right now and the game is around a hundred million or more "in-debt" to its backers.  Those ships and plots of land that those backers brought aren't going to form into existence by themselves.  Taking over Star Citizen would also mean taking over its obligations and it has a LOT of friggin' obligations now.

TheScavenger

This is more fun than watching the US elections of 2016

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

If an outsider lawyer reviewing the documents thinks Amazon's involvement is possible, and if Amazon's involvement would be bad for Crytek, don't you think Crytek's even more-expensive lawyer who's in charge of the actual case and where the actual case is his JOB would look to avoid that in every way possible?  If hypothetically Amazon's involvement is possible and also bad for Crytek, I'd trust the guy from what Forbes once described as the most powerful law firm in the world to avoid it over a lawyer who isn't directly involved in the case.

(of course, there is an alternative scenario where Amazon's involvement wouldn't necessarily be bad for Crytek and thus no avoiding needed, too.  Or where Amazon's involvement was possible but Crytek's lawyer already has that covered)

Pretty obvious, but as can they be careful to not get them involved, so likely will CIG do all they can to get them involved perhaps, mind this sort of strategy goes both ways and both companies will pull all the strings they can get to gain leverage in a case, so there's no pretending "oh this won't happen cause X reason" because to all we know, we don't know.

Dauzqul

lol @ all the lawyers here. Keep pretending!

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Pretty obvious, but as can they be careful to not get Amazon involved, so likely will CIG do all they can to get them involved perhaps, 

Yea, I'm sure Amazon's going to really appreciate that.

rodarin

Tiamat64 said:

rodarin said:

Tiamat64 said:

Whether or not CiG is guilty, it'd be stupid of Amazon to butt in.  That's like saying, "Hey, use our free software and we'll help you out with litigation if you're lucrative enough!"

There's also the question of whether or not Star Citizen actually IS lucrative enough.  It's not like Amazon is going to be sharing in any of Star Citizen's profits nor do they need the exposure and publicity, because they're Amazon.  At most Star Citizen just gives them more advertising revenue from ads, which needs to be weighed against the cost of the lawsuit (and again, any cans of worms they might get for being known as a company that will help out other companies with litigation just because they're using Amazon's free software).

And even if they DO butt in, they aren't going to do it pro-bono.  They're not a charity.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  VERY VERY MUCH the opposite. I don't think it'd sit well with either the backers or Chris Roberts himself if Amazon suddenly had a controlling interest in the game.

There's also the matter of how much Amazon actually CAN help anyways.  What are they going to do, threaten to back out of their lumberyard deal with Crytek this late in the game?  That'd be horrible for both of them and would tell all of Amazon's business partners (you know, the ones in ACTUAL business deals with them, unlike Star Citizen), "Hey, we'll push you around just because you got into a legal argument with someone who's using our free software!"

Amazon and Star Citizen are NOT super best friends.  They're more like acquaintances. If anything, Amazon's probably bigger friends with Crytek.  At most, from the interviews I've been reading regarding the switch to Lumberyard, Star Citizen's people are just "in contact" with Amazon from time to time. Crytek is the one that Amazon's got an actual business deal for the lumberyard software from in the first place (that Star Citizen relies on anyways!).  Who should they side with if forced to (and assuming neither party was found guilty yet)?  The guys they dealt with to get a huge engine from or the guys that are using that engine for free? (although the true correct answer would be "Neither.  It's none of your business. LITERALLY.")

OMG what if there is a settlement and the settlements only condition is  Chris Roberts and all his cronies have to leave SC and then let Amazon hire some other people to fix it...deja vu all over again. now THAT would be frigging epic.

Well, truthfully now that I think about it, I don't see why Amazon would want the game.  It's clearly a slip shod buggy piece of mess right now and the game is around a hundred million or more "in-debt" to its backers.  Those ships and plots of land that those backers brought aren't going to form into existence by themselves.  Taking over Star Citizen would also mean taking over its obligations and it has a LOT of friggin' obligations now.

thats true but they have so much money iot would almost be a write off and as a business its all upside I mean they have watched a guy who isnt the brightest bulb in the lamp fleece nearly 200 million out of people with hardly anything but hype, a few poorly done videos claiming to be game footage and a lot of jibberish.

Only thing is if Amazon felt morally compelled to make it as good as they could or just threw something together and shipped it  out the door. but at least an actual game that people could actually play. If they did decide to make it good then they have a lot of 'evidence' that people will be more than willing to shell out for anything and everything they could dream about selling.

Shit they could even integrate the actual Amazon store into the game.

I imagine that was probably something Roberts actually pitched to them.

There really is no debt if the game never gets finished thats it. At least if Amazon took over it would have some sort of a chance.

These cultists might not know it but this is probably the best chance they have of ever seeing this thing released. The fact people are so blindly devoted to a guy who has never ever finished a project he was in charge of and is showing the exact same M.O. he has always shown is disturbing. If I was a fan or a backer of the GAME and shit canning Roberts made it more likely to be released I know what I would want. And so would any other unbiased person who just wants the game.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

Well, truthfully now that I think about it, I don't see why Amazon would want the game.  It's clearly a slip shod buggy piece of mess right now and the game is around a hundred million or more "in-debt" to its backers.  Those ships and plots of land that those backers brought aren't going to form into existence by themselves.  Taking over Star Citizen would also mean taking over its obligations and it has a LOT of friggin' obligations now.

lol your lack of a business perspective is amazing, SC is a proven "profitable" product with a loyal customer-base, you have to go as low as to place debt under quotes to make that argument. You must be joking because I don't believe you are so disconnected from the real world when it comes to things like buying out the engine, rebranding the game under a new IP and release the same thing, the responsibilities the previous company had died with the IP, as for the "debt" I don't even need to say it it's pretty obvious.

Tiamat64 said:

Yea, I'm sure Amazon's going to really appreciate that.

Sure thing, even if CIG is willing to them giveaways to get their support if they need it, it's about money (duh they are a business) and if there is viability, then many things can happen.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

Well, truthfully now that I think about it, I don't see why Amazon would want the game.  It's clearly a slip shod buggy piece of mess right now and the game is around a hundred million or more "in-debt" to its backers.  Those ships and plots of land that those backers brought aren't going to form into existence by themselves.  Taking over Star Citizen would also mean taking over its obligations and it has a LOT of friggin' obligations now.

lol your lack of a business perspective is amazing, SC is a proven "profitable" product with a loyal customer-base, you have to go as low as to place debt under quotes to make that argument. You must be joking because I don't believe you are so disconnected from the real world when it comes to things like buying out the engine, rebranding the game under a new IP and release the same thing, the responsibilities the previous company had died with the IP, as for the "debt" I don't even need to say it it's pretty obvious.

Tiamat64 said:

Yea, I'm sure Amazon's going to really appreciate that.

Sure thing, even if CIG is willing to them giveaways to get their support if they need it, it's about money (duh they are a business) and if there is viability, then many things can happen.

If it was so profitable, why does Chris ever only talk about how much money he raised?  Where are the financial statements displaying this "profit"?

The lack of business perspective is with the guy who thinks $173 million with something as craptacular as 3.0 after over half a decade and now a huge lawsuit involving "the most powerful law firm on Wall Street" is good business.

Well, depending on how much Christ Roberts pocketted, I guess it was good business for him as a person.  But not CiG as a company.

And now you're proposing that CiG bribe Amazon with giveaways to get their support?  In a litigation case?

......Giveaways?  Seriously?  To Amazon?  O_o

Oooooooooookay.

ScotchUp

ROFL, how did you guys bring Amazon into all this. They could careless about the whole thing. Also, it hasn't really been that long where CIG changed over too LY! Pretty sure CryTek was already investigating CIG way before Amazon was involved. Plus I was told there is still CryTek data within Star Citizen and SQ42! Yet am not a developer, so I can only take from what I hear from friends. Now that friend isn't Major Tom or Smart. LOL, sick of people thinking only Smart is looking close at CIG!

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

If it was so profitable, why does Chris ever only talk about how much money he raised?  Where are the financial statements displaying this "profit"?

The lack of business perspective is with the guy who thinks $173 million with something as craptacular as 3.0 after over half a decade and now a huge lawsuit involving "the most powerful law firm on the planet" is good business.

And now you're proposing that CiG bribe Amazon with giveaways to get their support?  In a litigation case?

......Giveaways?  Seriously?  To Amazon?  O_o

Oooooooooookay.

Oh I see you hide behind a "give me proof" argument to dodge the revenue this company is capable to generate.

I see you are shocked by the argument... if there's mutual interest and benefit from something and there is viability to do it, so it can happen, and it can be negotiated, for example, "We wish to negotiate our contract/license/partnership with you so you could provide us with legal support.", what can very well go both ways.

ScotchUp said:

ROFL, how did you guys bring Amazon into all this. They could careless about the whole thing. Also, it hasn't really been that long where CIG changed over too LY! Pretty sure CryTek was already investigating CIG way before Amazon was involved. Plus I was told there is still CryTek data within Star Citizen and SQ42! Yet am not a developer, so I can only take from what I hear from friends. Now that friend isn't Major Tom or Smart. LOL, sick of people thinking only Smart is looking close at CIG! 

Such extraordinary insider knowledge of the situation you have.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

If it was so profitable, why does Chris ever only talk about how much money he raised?  Where are the financial statements displaying this "profit"?

The lack of business perspective is with the guy who thinks $173 million with something as craptacular as 3.0 after over half a decade and now a huge lawsuit involving "the most powerful law firm on the planet" is good business.

And now you're proposing that CiG bribe Amazon with giveaways to get their support?  In a litigation case?

......Giveaways?  Seriously?  To Amazon?  O_o

Oooooooooookay.

Oh I see you hide behind a "give me proof" argument to dodge the revenue this company is capable to generate.

I see you are shocked by the argument... if there's mutual interest and benefit from something and there is viability to do it, so it can happen, and it can be negotiated, for example, "We provide you with legal support in a recognition of your contract with us.", what can very well go both ways.

The movie Justice League made $600 million in revenue, over three times as much as Star Citizen, yet was a financial business failure.

I'm an accountant and you clearly are not.  You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "profit" even though you clearly think you do.  It's just ugly to watch.

Could you point me to a source of CiG having an actual contract with Amazon?  Chris Roberts said he "partnered" with them but if I recall correctly, analysis from many people showed that all he really probably meant was that they were now switched to Lumberyard, and post-interviews only ever mentioned that they were "in contact with Amazon".

Running a google search for "Cloud Imperium Games contract with Amazon" only gave me like, 50 articles about Crytek sueing them.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

The movie Justice League made $600 million in revenue, over three times as much as Star Citizen, yet was a financial business failure.

I'm an accountant and you clearly are not.  You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to business even though you think you do.  It's just ugly to watch.

Could you point me to a source of CiG having an actual contract with Amazon?  Chris Roberts said he "partnered" with them but if I recall correctly, analysis from many people showed that all he really probably meant was that they were now switched to Lumberyard, and post-interviews only ever mentioned that they were "in contact with Amazon".

Running a google search for "Cloud Imperium Games contract with Amazon" only gave me like, 50 articles about Crytek sueing them.

You are one accountant yet you bring a ridiculous argument. 

Go compare the revenue of movies with the revenue of video games? What's the argument? There's no argument just a contentless attempt at one.

Why do you want a source for something obvious? When you license their engine there is a contractual nature to it, whatever the terms they have settled with are.

rodarin

Max serious question if the only condition of any settlement was to have Roberts and all his cronies he has planted at the top leave the company and the project was given to some other company that guaranteed it would be delivered what would you say?

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

The movie Justice League made $600 million in revenue, over three times as much as Star Citizen, yet was a financial business failure.

I'm an accountant and you clearly are not.  You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to business even though you think you do.  It's just ugly to watch.

Could you point me to a source of CiG having an actual contract with Amazon?  Chris Roberts said he "partnered" with them but if I recall correctly, analysis from many people showed that all he really probably meant was that they were now switched to Lumberyard, and post-interviews only ever mentioned that they were "in contact with Amazon".

Running a google search for "Cloud Imperium Games contract with Amazon" only gave me like, 50 articles about Crytek sueing them.

You are one accountant yet you bring a ridiculous argument. 

Go compare the revenue of movies with the revenue of video games? What's the argument? There's no argument just a contentless attempt at one.

Why do you want a source for something obvious? When you license their engine there is a contractual nature to it, whatever the terms they have settled with are.

Many video game budgets get quite close to that of movies.  I don't see why it's an invalid comparison.  Do you need me to bring up a video game comparison now?  Sure, even though it's not going to stop you from derailing the topic and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has-sold-3-4-million-copies-failed-to-hit-expectations

Assuming 50 bucks a game, that's 170 million in revenue (oh hey, that's like, Star Citizen's revenue).  But still a business failure.

(well would you look at that?  A financial statement!)

Of course, you can continue blindly believing Star Citizen to be the epitome of good business.  I'm sure Christ Roberts won't argue even if the company crashes and burns (something that they could be hiding from you as much as they want without any financial statements) as long as he can walk away with that money in his pockets

As for Amazon's "contract" with CiG, sure, I imagine Amazon will definately be in a rush to support those guys using their Lumberyard for free over the guys that they actually contracted with to produce Lumberyard in the first place just because they have a free contract with CiG (that ANYONE can get. For free.).  And CiG gave them money as a "giveaway".  Which I doubt CiG will tell the backers since they won't even provide financial statements to them.  Your scenario totally makes sense and isn't just absolutely bizarre wishful thinking!

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:

Many video game budgets get quite close to that of movies.  I don't see why it's an invalid comparison.  Do you need me to bring up a video game comparison now?  Sure, even though it's not going to stop you from derailing the topic and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

It is one invalid comparison because you are blatantly ignoring so much to make any argument possible. 

I'm not even addressing your ridiculous argument you did spin this towards, it's like this is not based on a cost vs profit and business expectations and even goals for said titles, and there is some standard number that defines success or failure. No more from me, I'm done discussing with you go find someone else.