Howdy, Stranger!

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

Crytek moves to dismiss lawsuit without prejudice

KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
Old news but Crytek is moving to have its lawsuit against CI dismissed without prejudice. The prevailing theory is that SQ42 will not be coming out by the court date of October so there won’t be anything to sue against. Without prejudice means Crytek can refile the lawsuit when, and if, SQ42 releases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/ejedi8/star_citizen_lawsuit_takes_an_unexpected_turn_and/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

CI wants Crytek to pay a portion of legal fees if they do dismiss.

Crytek dropped this bomb with the legal filing

“This case has been marked by a pattern of CIG saying one thing in its public statements and another in this litigation. For example, at the outset of this case, CIG had publicly claimed it had switched to using the Lumberyard Engine for both Star Citizen and Squadron 42, but was forced to confirm during this litigation that no such switch had taken place.”

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt of course but perhaps it’s time to question why during discovery Crytek thinks SQ42 won’t even get a release by the trial date schedule for October hence the dismissal
gervaise1[Deleted User]Tom_Neverwinter
«13

Comments

  • Azaron_NightbladeAzaron_Nightblade Member EpicPosts: 4,829
    Probably helps to explain why there hasn't been a peep about Squadron 42 in a while now, and why it missed its original expected launch date.
    bcbullybwwianakiev

    My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)

    https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Probably helps to explain why there hasn't been a peep about Squadron 42 in a while now, and why it missed its original expected launch date.
    You spend Christmas somewhere with no connection to the net? On an asteroid?

     https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/486245/squadron-42-2019-visual-teaser/p1

    Lots of sites covered it.
    HuntrezzTom_Neverwinter
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 18,697
    They are making two games, they have the money to pay for the second game, why not just pay it? How much did the license to make one game cost as opposed to two?
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    Old news but Crytek is moving to have its lawsuit against CI dismissed without prejudice. The prevailing theory is that SQ42 will not be coming out by the court date of October so there won’t be anything to sue against. Without prejudice means Crytek can refile the lawsuit when, and if, SQ42 releases.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/ejedi8/star_citizen_lawsuit_takes_an_unexpected_turn_and/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

    CI wants Crytek to pay a portion of legal fees if they do dismiss.

    Crytek dropped this bomb with the legal filing

    “This case has been marked by a pattern of CIG saying one thing in its public statements and another in this litigation. For example, at the outset of this case, CIG had publicly claimed it had switched to using the Lumberyard Engine for both Star Citizen and Squadron 42, but was forced to confirm during this litigation that no such switch had taken place.”

    Everything should be taken with a grain of salt of course but perhaps it’s time to question why during discovery Crytek thinks SQ42 won’t even get a release by the trial date schedule for October hence the dismissal


    Not a dismissal but a request for a dismissal. By Crytek. From the filing:

    "CIG’s position is that, unless and until the Court grants Crytek’s Motion to Dismiss or a motion for a protective order, motions which CIG intends to oppose, it is improper for Crytek to delay discovery, including by refusing to produce their CEO and corporate designees for their noticed depositions or to produce Crytek’s relevant documents in advance of these noticed depositions. CIG further believes that, in light of the existing schedule set by the Court, the parties need to proceed with the litigation and continue preparing for trial. "

    Source: https://www.docdroid.net/t4uERy1/031132165356.pdf#page=4

    So rather than: "perhaps it’s time to question why during discovery Crytek thinks SQ42 won’t even get a release by the trial date schedule for October hence the dismissal"

    The question should be:
    - why don't Crytek want to proceed with the trial
    - why don't Crytek want to continue with discovery.

    Crytek - after all - pushed for the trial. Crytek pushed for discovery.


    Because ... roll of the drums .... SQ42 won't have been released by the trial date. And they forgot to mention this when agreeing to the original trial date. Or the first extension to June. And have only now "uncovered" that it won't be out by October. That SQ42 milestone chart must have been buried real deep. 

    And why would the release date matter? This is about stuff prior to the switch to Lumberyard. Which - as has been discussed - "was and wasn't" a change. (Amazon having paid Crytek lots of money to add the Cry x.x to Lumberyard.)





    Most of Crytek's original claims have been thrown out; pre-trial. The remaining claims were considered "tenuous enough" by the court that Crytek had to put up a bond to cover potential damages that Crytek may have to pay CIG for bringing the case.

    This request by Crytek - who have CIG on the ropes remember - hardly inspires confidence in Crytek's position.




    Asm0deuslaseritTom_Neverwinter
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,377
    gervaise1 said:
    Probably helps to explain why there hasn't been a peep about Squadron 42 in a while now, and why it missed its original expected launch date.
    You spend Christmas somewhere with no connection to the net? On an asteroid?

     https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/486245/squadron-42-2019-visual-teaser/p1

    Lots of sites covered it.
    That doesn't tell us anything about how SQ 42 is progressing or when they're planning to release it.

    I don't think we should read too much into this lawsuit, but Azaron_Nighblade is correct that at the moment RSI is avoiding talking about how SQ 42 is going.
     
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,377
    edited January 2020
    EDIT: Deleted
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,610
    edited January 2020
    Crytek was gambling since the start, the case lies on disputes of the meaning of phrases in a contract, even against a release date suing over a breach of contract that didn't even happen.

    Also if SQ42 was ready to release it would release, CIG is in power to do changes they see fit on how they release it that can block what they picked as their argument and with it their attempt to pursue.

    The codebase switch move is also no news, Amazon owns the same code that Crytek owns that CIG uses, pretty much all they did was a rebranding. If Crytek's feels are hurt over the license move they shouldn't have sold it to Amazon.

    Just the same stuff that been talked in 2017 when this was started.
    Asm0deusTom_Neverwinterbwwianakiev
  • vegetableoilvegetableoil Member RarePosts: 735
    commenting on anything related to SC will just get flamed why bother shrug. ;)
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited January 2020
    Vrika said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Probably helps to explain why there hasn't been a peep about Squadron 42 in a while now, and why it missed its original expected launch date.
    You spend Christmas somewhere with no connection to the net? On an asteroid?

     https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/486245/squadron-42-2019-visual-teaser/p1

    Lots of sites covered it.
    That doesn't tell us anything about how SQ 42 is progressing or when they're planning to release it.

    I don't think we should read too much into this lawsuit, but Azaron_Nighblade is correct that at the moment RSI is avoiding talking about how SQ 42 is going.

    If by "not talking about SQ42" you mean "based on the milestone chart it seems that SQ42 is behind schedule which they are not talking about" - OK. They have been updating the chart though.

    In context though this is Crytek saying: we have just realised that SQ42 hasn't released yet! Remember the trial date was originally scheduled for pretty much now. Then June. Now October has been requested. (Second continuance).

    Which is rubbish! And any judge that reads these forums will know that the earliest possible SQ42 beta release date has been available for a while. And that the only question was about the actual date!

    So for Crytek to suggest they have only just realised that SQ42 won't be out now - pfft.

    My thought is that this is an "excuse" they have dredged up on which to hang their motion to dismiss without prejudice and without costs. 
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Member RarePosts: 1,675
    Thing is, saying that this shows SQ42 won't be out by October and that this shows CIG never switched to Lumberyard is like running a thorough analysis on a drop of water just to tell everyone that water is wet.

    Of course, there are quite a few people who will continue to say that water is dry but just like everything else, the logic or evidence stemming from latest developments in this lawsuit isn't going to convince those guys anyways
    botrytis
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    THE very big difference?

    CI can use YOUR money...really sad,CRYTEK has to use their own money.CI has a LOT more of YOUR money to unload on lawyers,Crytek has VERY little fighting chance to protect their copyright and obviously has had terrible lawyers in the past that allowed them to be scammed in the contract.
    botrytisTom_Neverwinter

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

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Scot said:
    They are making two games, they have the money to pay for the second game, why not just pay it? How much did the license to make one game cost as opposed to two?
    If you delve into the case you will discover that the agreement with Crytek was for a single player and a multi-player. From day 1.

    Crytek sold the rights to Amazon. Amazon added Cry to Lumberyard. CIG "moved" to Lumberyard - they were using the same version of the engine that Amazon bought the rights to. CIG will subsequently pay Amazon (for AWS etc).

    Lest you feel to sorry for Crytek though remember they got a reported $60-$80M from Amazon.
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    Crytek was gambling since the start, the case lies on disputes of the meaning of phrases in a contract, even against a release date suing over a breach of contract that didn't even happen.

    Also if SQ42 was ready to release it would release, CIG is in power to do changes they see fit on how they release it that can block what they picked as their argument and with it their attempt to pursue.

    The codebase switch move is also no news, Amazon owns the same code that Crytek owns that CIG uses, pretty much all they did was a rebranding. If Crytek's feels are hurt over the license move they shouldn't have sold it to Amazon.

    Just the same stuff that been talked in 2017 when this was started.
    That’s all well and good but thought I read somewhere that CI is still using a Crytek engine tool that lumberyard doesn’t use. And it begs the question why would Crytek file a legal document stating that CI was forced to confirm that no such switch has taken place unless they are just trying to piss off the judge.
    botrytisMaxBaconTom_Neverwinter
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    As Lumberyard is essentially the CryEngine, i always smile when i hear CryTeks claims.

    What did they expect when they sold the CryEngine to Amazon ? And Amazon improved it.
    What did they expect when they did not pay their own programmers and some moved to CIG?
    What did they expect when most of their claims were already kicked out by the judge pre-trial?
    What did they expect when their financial situation is so precarious that the judge wants a deposit from them just to be sure that fees are being paid?


    Have fun
    botrytischeebaTom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Erillion said:
    As Lumberyard is essentially the CryEngine, i always smile when i hear CryTeks claims.

    What did they expect when they sold the CryEngine to Amazon ? And Amazon improved it.
    What did they expect when they did not pay their own programmers and some moved to CIG?
    What did they expect when most of their claims were already kicked out by the judge pre-trial?
    What did they expect when their financial situation is so precarious that the judge wants a deposit from them just to be sure that fees are being paid?


    Have fun
    If amazon improved it then it’s not essentially CryEngine anymore.
    This has nothing to do with the lawsuit
    And the other half survived so what’s your point?
    This is a common tactic to force the other party to drop the suit if they can’t afford to put up the fee, which Crytek did so the point is moot
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • newbismxnewbismx Member UncommonPosts: 276
    IDK, personally, I feel that SC is enough of a clusterfuck that there doesnt even need to be a shady lawsuit  as a cherry on top.

    The thing about all the lawsuit theory-crafting is that I'm not familiar enough with the law (especially this specific area of law) to even speculate- And even if I were an Ace Attorney, the outcome will still depend on a ton of variables , many of which I wouldnt even be privy to...And my opinion at best would still be a 60/40 guess.

    I'll wait for the entire thing to be over and use my 20/20 hindsight.

    That said, my completely uninformed opinion is that CIG completely screwed over Crytek, yet in the most slimy 'legal' way possible...But legal. 
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • GrindcoreTHRALLGrindcoreTHRALL Member UncommonPosts: 272
    SO funny. Everyone thought CIG was screwed and there were tons of people drooling over the thought. Now CIG is clearly winning the case and people feel bad for Crytek when it was obvious they are now the slimy party with no claims. Keep claiming it because crytek had bad lawyers or CIG has more money but in the end it boils down to Crytek having no claim. EZ GG.
    MaxBaconErillionTom_NeverwinterBabuinix
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    SO funny. Everyone thought CIG was screwed and there were tons of people drooling over the thought. Now CIG is clearly winning the case and people feel bad for Crytek when it was obvious they are now the slimy party with no claims. Keep claiming it because crytek had bad lawyers or CIG has more money but in the end it boils down to Crytek having no claim. EZ GG.
    Except you know, they still do have a claim lol
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229

    newbismx said:
    IDK, personally, I feel that SC is enough of a clusterfuck that there doesnt even need to be a shady lawsuit  as a cherry on top.

    The thing about all the lawsuit theory-crafting is that I'm not familiar enough with the law (especially this specific area of law) to even speculate- And even if I were an Ace Attorney, the outcome will still depend on a ton of variables , many of which I wouldnt even be privy to...And my opinion at best would still be a 60/40 guess.

    I'll wait for the entire thing to be over and use my 20/20 hindsight.

    That said, my completely uninformed opinion is that CIG completely screwed over Crytek, yet in the most slimy 'legal' way possible...But legal. 
    It’s fun to theorycraft sometimes though. Yeah most of this will depend on variables that only the people involved in the lawsuit will see (since a lot of stuff is sealed or redacted) but still fun to throw out your opinion and pose questions as long as you don’t try to pass your opinion off as fact.

    I can see CI merging SQ42 back into SC as a module to bypass any Crytek claim if they get backed into a corner. They would have a shitshow on their hands though with the backers who bought SQ42 standalone but they’d prob just throw store credit at them and deny refunds lol. Course if they made it a module then the long rumoured (and very highly suspect) console version would have trouble releasing lol
    MaxBaconTom_Neverwinter
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,610
    edited January 2020
    Kefo said:
    That’s all well and good but thought I read somewhere that CI is still using a Crytek engine tool that lumberyard doesn’t use. And it begs the question why would Crytek file a legal document stating that CI was forced to confirm that no such switch has taken place unless they are just trying to piss off the judge.
    Amazon forked the same branch of CryEngine as CIG uses.

    The code LY released was 99% .something a copy of CE's own codebase, the fact the engine NOW does not make use of X or Y that CIG still does not mean the code is not still licensed code from Crytek by Amazon.

    Crytek can not lay a claim on code that Amazon also owns and has licensed to CIG unless that code has never been part of LY's code.

    Kefo said:
    I can see CI merging SQ42 back into SC as a module to bypass any Crytek claim if they get backed into a corner. They would have a shitshow on their hands though with the backers who bought SQ42 standalone but they’d prob just throw store credit at them and deny refunds lol. Course if they made it a module then the long rumoured (and very highly suspect) console version would have trouble releasing lol
    The SQ42 pledge is an obvious minority of backers, even today on the main page SC is sold SQ42 is still an add-on to SC, they don't need to refund any less they simply give every standalone SC's digital download.

    So much hype over this case for nothing...
    gervaise1Tom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Rhoklaw said:
    Law suits leave no room for bullshit. While CI / Chris Roberts can put on a grand show to the public, which has been quite obvious to some for a while now, they can't play the same dog and pony show in court. You all should thank Crytek for shedding some truth about the current state of both games.
    What truth though?
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    SO funny. Everyone thought CIG was screwed and there were tons of people drooling over the thought. Now CIG is clearly winning the case and people feel bad for Crytek when it was obvious they are now the slimy party with no claims. Keep claiming it because crytek had bad lawyers or CIG has more money but in the end it boils down to Crytek having no claim. EZ GG.
    Except you know, they still do have a claim lol
    To be accurate: Crytek still say they have a claim - just not one that they wish to pursue at this time. Whether that claim stands up is what will / might be decided in the court case. A court case that CIG are happy to have at this point in time.
    ErillionTom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited January 2020
    Kefo said:
    <snip>
    This is a common tactic to force the other party to drop the suit if they can’t afford to put up the fee, which Crytek did so the point is moot
    Don't follow.

    Since Crytek did put up the bond - so its moot - why do they now want to drop the case? Unless you mean wanting to drop a case is the common tactic to try and get the other side to pay?
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Crytek was gambling since the start, the case lies on disputes of the meaning of phrases in a contract, even against a release date suing over a breach of contract that didn't even happen.

    Also if SQ42 was ready to release it would release, CIG is in power to do changes they see fit on how they release it that can block what they picked as their argument and with it their attempt to pursue.

    The codebase switch move is also no news, Amazon owns the same code that Crytek owns that CIG uses, pretty much all they did was a rebranding. If Crytek's feels are hurt over the license move they shouldn't have sold it to Amazon.

    Just the same stuff that been talked in 2017 when this was started.
    That’s all well and good but thought I read somewhere that CI is still using a Crytek engine tool that lumberyard doesn’t use. And it begs the question why would Crytek file a legal document stating that CI was forced to confirm that no such switch has taken place unless they are just trying to piss off the judge.
    A lot of what Cry has done seems to have fallen into that category! 

    If CIG are using a Cry engine tool that Lumberyard doesn't use then that potentially would be an issue between CIG and Amazon. Amazon, as reported, having acquired all of the engine fork. Not that there are any suggestions that Amazon have limited it.
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • ColdmeatColdmeat Member UncommonPosts: 3,407
    The best outcome of all the asinine bickering over this video game is that one of these dunderheaded sack of rancid cabbages that spent tens of thousands of dollars on a game that has yet to release drops dead of a massive coronary while defending this nonsense on some forum on the internet.
    Tom_NeverwinterBabuinixbwwianakievtweedledumb99Cadiz
Sign In or Register to comment.