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

2

Comments

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MaxBacon said:
    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.

    So much hype over this case for nothing...
    Well if for example CryEngine uses scaleform and lumberyard doesn’t then that could be a pretty cut and dry that CI is still using CryEngine to develop the game otherwise they would have switched to whatever lumberyard uses in place of scaleform which is what I meant in the part you quoted
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    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.
    Well if Crytek claims rest on SQ42 being out by October 2020 so that Crytek can make the claim that CI released a second game using their engine and violated their agreement and CI has no intention of releasing SQ42 by then to make the claim harder to win in court then yeah they would be quite happy to keep the court case going
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    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?
    Crytek put up the bond in order to get to discovery because CI was fighting them every step of the way. Now that they have been in discovery Crytek has probably uncovered some information that shows that SQ42 will not be released by the court date which will make it harder to argue their case.

    Crytek is asking for a dismissal without prejudice which means if the judge grants it the case will be dismissed with Crytek having the option to file again for everything that was granted last time at a later date, ideally once and if SQ42 releases as a stand-alone game
    tweedledumb99
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    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.
    No this would be between Crytek and CI. Basically Crytek is saying CI is still using their code/tools to build the game while Chris Roberts said no we switched everything to lumberyard in a matter of days using only 2 engineers (which sounds like a lot of crap to me lol)

    Crytek would have no fight with Amazon cause Amazon legally owns the engine and are allowed to edit it how they want. Amazon would only have an issue with this if CI signed an agreement saying you have to use our tools and if we catch you using 3rd party tools you will be in hot water which I can’t see them doing.
    Tom_Neverwintertweedledumb99
  • barasawabarasawa Member UncommonPosts: 617
    edited January 2020
    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?
    Actually the license they had covered multiple "games". Later pages in the contract refer to "the game" as a simplification, much like instead of repeating the name of someone they get defined as "the licensee" or something like that. 

    Up on Youtube, Lawful Masses has been going over this stuff a lot, including a reading of the contract with his own comments, and he is a copyright lawyer.

    Basically Crytek is losing, and they know it. To withdraw now without prejudice means they want time to regroup and figure out how to spin this so they can win or slink away to lick their wounds, because right now they're going down the drain and are going to definitely lose the bond the judge made them put up since it already looked really bad for them back then.

    ianal, but I do listen to them.
    ErillionTom_Neverwinter

    Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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.
    No this would be between Crytek and CI. Basically Crytek is saying CI is still using their code/tools to build the game while Chris Roberts said no we switched everything to lumberyard in a matter of days using only 2 engineers (which sounds like a lot of crap to me lol)

    Crytek would have no fight with Amazon cause Amazon legally owns the engine and are allowed to edit it how they want. Amazon would only have an issue with this if CI signed an agreement saying you have to use our tools and if we catch you using 3rd party tools you will be in hot water which I can’t see them doing.
    Yes Crytek - if what you have read etc. holds credence - are saying that CI are using some of their code. That would mean though that they are using code that was bot part of the original agreement between CIG and Crytek since all of that code was purchased by Amazon. 
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Rhoklaw said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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?
    Did you read the article? Of course not. So let's start with you doing that. Once you locate the obvious facts presented within about the current state of the game revealed in court versus the current state of the game revealed to the public, you'll understand. Basically, CI / Chris Roberts has been telling the public one thing, yet in court revealed to have a completely different answer.
    I read the court documentation (as well as the article). And the previous stuff as well at the time of the first continuance and all the stuff before that. Hence my query to you - which you haven't answered - what have we learnt. The article has speculations but is "light" lets say on facts.
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Kefo said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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?
    Crytek put up the bond in order to get to discovery because CI was fighting them every step of the way. Now that they have been in discovery Crytek has probably uncovered some information that shows that SQ42 will not be released by the court date which will make it harder to argue their case.

    Crytek is asking for a dismissal without prejudice which means if the judge grants it the case will be dismissed with Crytek having the option to file again for everything that was granted last time at a later date, ideally once and if SQ42 releases as a stand-alone game
    Read what you have just wrote: "Crytek has probably uncovered some information that shows that SQ42 will not be released by the court date." 

    We have discussed SQ42's milestone chart - which still doesn't show a release date. And I am sure I can find numerous posts from numerous posters about how dates slip. Are you seriously suggesting that Crytek and their lawyers didn't check CIG's web pages. (Not checking this forum - OK.)

    This information has been in the public domain for 2 years and yet you are suggesting ... they have now discovered something that - what - backs up what CIG and everyone who has been commenting on the schedule has known? 

    And this information was available last year when Crytek opted to go to court. It was available at the end of last year when they asked for the continuance until June. Its not new.

    Hence my view that its a hook on which to hang their "request" to opt out of the trial. 

    And yes I understand what they want to do. And I am sure I don't need to explain why CIG are opposed. And based on last year - and what was said when the ruling went against Crytek's request to not put up a bond I'm not sure they will prevail. But they might. 
    ErillionTom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    Kefo said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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.
    No this would be between Crytek and CI. Basically Crytek is saying CI is still using their code/tools to build the game while Chris Roberts said no we switched everything to lumberyard in a matter of days using only 2 engineers (which sounds like a lot of crap to me lol)

    Crytek would have no fight with Amazon cause Amazon legally owns the engine and are allowed to edit it how they want. Amazon would only have an issue with this if CI signed an agreement saying you have to use our tools and if we catch you using 3rd party tools you will be in hot water which I can’t see them doing.
    Yes Crytek - if what you have read etc. holds credence - are saying that CI are using some of their code. That would mean though that they are using code that was bot part of the original agreement between CIG and Crytek since all of that code was purchased by Amazon. 
    Ummm...what?
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    Kefo said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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?
    Crytek put up the bond in order to get to discovery because CI was fighting them every step of the way. Now that they have been in discovery Crytek has probably uncovered some information that shows that SQ42 will not be released by the court date which will make it harder to argue their case.

    Crytek is asking for a dismissal without prejudice which means if the judge grants it the case will be dismissed with Crytek having the option to file again for everything that was granted last time at a later date, ideally once and if SQ42 releases as a stand-alone game
    Read what you have just wrote: "Crytek has probably uncovered some information that shows that SQ42 will not be released by the court date." 

    We have discussed SQ42's milestone chart - which still doesn't show a release date. And I am sure I can find numerous posts from numerous posters about how dates slip. Are you seriously suggesting that Crytek and their lawyers didn't check CIG's web pages. (Not checking this forum - OK.)

    This information has been in the public domain for 2 years and yet you are suggesting ... they have now discovered something that - what - backs up what CIG and everyone who has been commenting on the schedule has known? 

    And this information was available last year when Crytek opted to go to court. It was available at the end of last year when they asked for the continuance until June. Its not new.

    Hence my view that its a hook on which to hang their "request" to opt out of the trial. 

    And yes I understand what they want to do. And I am sure I don't need to explain why CIG are opposed. And based on last year - and what was said when the ruling went against Crytek's request to not put up a bond I'm not sure they will prevail. But they might. 
    Well I’m sure when Crytek filed the lawsuit 2 years ago they were under the impression that SQ42 would be out by now since CR and CI have been saying it’s coming out this year, every year since 2016

    And yeah during discovery they probably got a look at internal documents that show that *gasp* CR and CI have been lying yet again about the state of the game and figured out it won’t release anywhere near the court date. That or they saw plans to release on console and are holding out until CI do that so they can make a stronger claim.

    After all the lies and half truths that have been told by CI you really think Crytek and their lawyers are going to trust what CI put up on their webpage or are they going to want to look at internal documents, interview staff and look at codebase revision logs to get to the heart of the matter?
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    >>> they probably got a look >>>

    So all of this is just speculation on your part.

    And the only FACT we know is that CryTek suddenly wants to "dismiss without prejudice" for "REASONS".


    Have fun
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Erillion said:
    >>> they probably got a look >>>

    So all of this is just speculation on your part.

    And the only FACT we know is that CryTek suddenly wants to "dismiss without prejudice" for "REASONS".


    Have fun
    Ok fine. They did get a look.
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,425
    gervaise1 said:
    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. 
    If CIG gives access to people then it's considered released. Whether it's actually called released, alpha, or something else isn't as important as distributing it to their customers so that the customers use that program.

    Current roadmap is still that alpha would be released a lot before the trial date.

    It's no unfeasiable that Crytek would have had to wait for this long to get certainty that no version will be released before trial date.


    I agree that it's more likely Crytek just wants to drop this case, but their explanation for why they want to drop it is still plausible.
     
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Vrika said:
    <snip>

    Current roadmap is still that alpha would be released a lot before the trial date.
    <snip>
    Two things wrong with this.

    First your suggestion that an alpha will suffice is not what has played out when it comes to other parts of the trial. One of Crytek's claims came to a dead stop when they talked about SC being released when its actually in alpha.

    Second the trial should have been now not October. October is simply the second continuation date. SQ42's milestone dates haven't changed since the original trial date was agreed. So if this mattered why agree to "now". Or the first continuation date of June. And why agree to October - you say the alpha is long before the new date of October but its Q2. So end June. You that confident in the schedule?




    The one game, two game argument is one of the few things not yet decided.

    Crytek's position its: if we had realised it was 2 "distinct" games we would have negotiated for a higher sum of money.  

    CIG (imo) will want to establish - via discovery - whether this argument is reasonable. If it is they may offer more money; alternatively they may establish Crytek have charged them a "two game" rate.

    Once this is established this part will be settled. Either some extra money to Crytek or it will be found that CIG have already paid a "two game" rate. (It having been established that there has no wilful attempts at deception etc. - the agreement clearly being for two somethings!)

    Crytek are refuse to co-operate. Crytek are blocking discovery. Why?

    Speculation:
    Crytek have crunched the numbers. Looked at the odds of winning some parts of their case and what damages they might get vs. what has already / might go against them and what costs they will be ordered to pay. And having crunched the numbers they are looking to abandon the case - without paying any costs.

    CIG's issue with this - imo - is that Crytek want the right to come back at a later date.

    Tom_Neverwinter
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,425
    edited January 2020
    gervaise1 said:
    Vrika said:
    <snip>

    Current roadmap is still that alpha would be released a lot before the trial date.
    <snip>
    Two things wrong with this.

    First your suggestion that an alpha will suffice is not what has played out when it comes to other parts of the trial. One of Crytek's claims came to a dead stop when they talked about SC being released when its actually in alpha.

    Second the trial should have been now not October. October is simply the second continuation date. SQ42's milestone dates haven't changed since the original trial date was agreed. So if this mattered why agree to "now". Or the first continuation date of June. And why agree to October - you say the alpha is long before the new date of October but its Q2. So end June. You that confident in the schedule?




    The one game, two game argument is one of the few things not yet decided.

    Crytek's position its: if we had realised it was 2 "distinct" games we would have negotiated for a higher sum of money.  

    CIG (imo) will want to establish - via discovery - whether this argument is reasonable. If it is they may offer more money; alternatively they may establish Crytek have charged them a "two game" rate.

    Once this is established this part will be settled. Either some extra money to Crytek or it will be found that CIG have already paid a "two game" rate. (It having been established that there has no wilful attempts at deception etc. - the agreement clearly being for two somethings!)

    Crytek are refuse to co-operate. Crytek are blocking discovery. Why?

    Speculation:
    Crytek have crunched the numbers. Looked at the odds of winning some parts of their case and what damages they might get vs. what has already / might go against them and what costs they will be ordered to pay. And having crunched the numbers they are looking to abandon the case - without paying any costs.

    CIG's issue with this - imo - is that Crytek want the right to come back at a later date.

    CIG can't establish that in discovery. Discovery is for obtaining evidence from opposing party. Legal question like how the contract should be interpreted are ruled by judge.



    I don't remember either the claim thrown up with that argument or the previous dates. But if at some point Crytek continued despite knowledge that the game will not be released in time, then I'm sure CIG is going to point it out as a reason for why Crytek should pay for their legal costs it the suit is dismissed as Crytek asks.
    Tom_Neverwinterbwwianakiev
     
  • TillerTiller Member LegendaryPosts: 10,279
    edited January 2020
    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
    Jokes on Crytek, none of these games will ever release; CR will make sure of that. :D

    newbismxTom_NeverwinterKefoTiamatRoarNorseGodCadiz
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
     
  • Tom_NeverwinterTom_Neverwinter Member UncommonPosts: 30
    Tiller said:
    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
    Jokes on Crytek, none of these games will ever release; CR will make sure of that. :D

    those one liners with no evidence XD [no meme this time... as per your usual? no personal attacks and gas lighting this time?]

    so far Chris Roberts has released several games. why would this one not release... Lets also be honest derek smart has not really ever released a single playable game... this one is clearly playable. 

    3.8 has shown some promise and the 3.8.1 ptu was pushing 60 players. [thats players, and a slew of ai and ships+ planetoids] 

    evidence shows this is happening, sooner or later.

    so maybe actually put in some effort instead of low effort posts... 


  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited January 2020
    Vrika said:
    <snip>

    CIG can't establish that in discovery. Discovery is for obtaining evidence from opposing party. Legal question like how the contract should be interpreted are ruled by judge.

    <snip>
    Maybe. However - if you read the court papers -

    " 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. "

    - CIG want to discover something, wanting access to some documents etc. The question is what. 

    And to reiterate Crytek don't want to participate so - clearly - they must have some dark secrets buried that totally undermine their case. (At least I suspect that is how it would be portrayed if CIG were refusing.)
    Tom_Neverwintertweedledumb99
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Tiller said:
    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
    Jokes on Crytek, none of these games will ever release; CR will make sure of that. :D

    those one liners with no evidence XD [no meme this time... as per your usual? no personal attacks and gas lighting this time?]

    so far Chris Roberts has released several games. why would this one not release... Lets also be honest derek smart has not really ever released a single playable game... this one is clearly playable. 

    3.8 has shown some promise and the 3.8.1 ptu was pushing 60 players. [thats players, and a slew of ai and ships+ planetoids] 

    evidence shows this is happening, sooner or later.

    so maybe actually put in some effort instead of low effort posts... 


    Chris Roberts hasn’t released a completed game in something like 20 years. From what I’ve seen of videos of him he’s still living in that time period
    TillerTom_NeverwinterNorseGod
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    gervaise1 said:
    Vrika said:
    <snip>

    CIG can't establish that in discovery. Discovery is for obtaining evidence from opposing party. Legal question like how the contract should be interpreted are ruled by judge.

    <snip>
    Maybe. However - if you read the court papers -

    " 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. "

    - CIG want to discover something, wanting access to some documents etc. The question is what. 

    And to reiterate Crytek don't want to participate so - clearly - they must have some dark secrets buried that totally undermine their case. (At least I suspect that is how it would be portrayed if CIG were refusing.)
    Neither did CI to be honest. They did everything possible to delay discovery so it’s kinda funny they are whining about it now that the shoe is on the other foot.
    Tom_Neverwinter
  • Tom_NeverwinterTom_Neverwinter Member UncommonPosts: 30
    Rhoklaw said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    gervaise1 said:
    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?
    Did you read the article? Of course not. So let's start with you doing that. Once you locate the obvious facts presented within about the current state of the game revealed in court versus the current state of the game revealed to the public, you'll understand. Basically, CI / Chris Roberts has been telling the public one thing, yet in court revealed to have a completely different answer.
    I read the court documentation (as well as the article). And the previous stuff as well at the time of the first continuance and all the stuff before that. Hence my query to you - which you haven't answered - what have we learnt. The article has speculations but is "light" lets say on facts.
    I'm referring to release dates given by CI / Chris Roberts. The ever changing, ever delayed progress of both games. The whole point of Crytek dismissing the case now is because they expected SQ42 to release before the actual court date based on public notification by CI / Chris Roberts. I'm not concerned about whether Crytek has a case or not. My point is, CI / Chris Roberts are habitual liars about game progress.


    sure... if you believe the hate group....

    if you actually read..... like the source materials.... its apparent items are being taken out of context. crytek is not cig..... stop taking cryteks meandering statements as cigs activity or progress. hell stop taking crytek or the hate groups statements as fact.

    cite that material, source it. prove thats actually whats going on. 

    kefo is yet to provide anything credible and many other users... 
    bwwianakiev
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,184
    Tiller said:
    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
    Jokes on Crytek, none of these games will ever release; CR will make sure of that. :D

    those one liners with no evidence XD [no meme this time... as per your usual? no personal attacks and gas lighting this time?]

    so far Chris Roberts has released several games. why would this one not release... Lets also be honest derek smart has not really ever released a single playable game... this one is clearly playable. 

    3.8 has shown some promise and the 3.8.1 ptu was pushing 60 players. [thats players, and a slew of ai and ships+ planetoids] 

    evidence shows this is happening, sooner or later.

    so maybe actually put in some effort instead of low effort posts... 


    As always:  Chris Roberts has never released a game on his own.  All his released games came when he had Origin Systems in charge.  I suspect that Warren Spector was added as co-producer to Wing Commander, to get it releasable after CR failed in that arena.   He wasn't chosen to do WC2.     His second game, Strike Commander, was three years late.    Digital Anvil failed.

    The Microsoft manager who took over Digital Anvil's Freelancer production says he thought Chris Roberts funneled money and effort that was supposed to go to Freelancer to the Wing Commander Movie.   Certainly grounds to wonder what's going on  presently at CIG.

    Crytek may or may not have a provable case.  That's why it's best to avoid the legal system if you can.  No telling what will come of it.   And that goes for both sides.

    Because lawyers.  Lawyers never change....
    [Deleted User]

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,254
    As always:  Chris Roberts has never released a game on his own.  All his released games came when he had Origin Systems in charge.  I suspect that Warren Spector was added as co-producer to Wing Commander, to get it releasable after CR failed in that arena.   He wasn't chosen to do WC2.     His second game, Strike Commander, was three years late.    Digital Anvil failed.

    The Microsoft manager who took over Digital Anvil's Freelancer production says he thought Chris Roberts funneled money and effort that was supposed to go to Freelancer to the Wing Commander Movie.   Certainly grounds to wonder what's going on  presently at CIG.

    Crytek may or may not have a provable case.  That's why it's best to avoid the legal system if you can.  No telling what will come of it.   And that goes for both sides.

    Because lawyers.  Lawyers never change....

    Rumours spread by you and claims that have been proven untrue here several times. Repeating them does not make them any more true than the first 24 times you posted it.

    Remember this? Its even on the cover !
    Strike commanderjpg

    Developer(s)Origin Systems
    Publisher(s)Electronic Arts
    Director(s)Chris Roberts
    Producer(s)Chris Roberts
    Designer(s)Chris Roberts
    Jeff George
    Programmer(s)Jason Templeman
    Chris Roberts
    Paul Isaac


    Have fun

  • rodarinrodarin Member EpicPosts: 2,604
    Erillion said:
    As always:  Chris Roberts has never released a game on his own.  All his released games came when he had Origin Systems in charge.  I suspect that Warren Spector was added as co-producer to Wing Commander, to get it releasable after CR failed in that arena.   He wasn't chosen to do WC2.     His second game, Strike Commander, was three years late.    Digital Anvil failed.

    The Microsoft manager who took over Digital Anvil's Freelancer production says he thought Chris Roberts funneled money and effort that was supposed to go to Freelancer to the Wing Commander Movie.   Certainly grounds to wonder what's going on  presently at CIG.

    Crytek may or may not have a provable case.  That's why it's best to avoid the legal system if you can.  No telling what will come of it.   And that goes for both sides.

    Because lawyers.  Lawyers never change....

    Rumours spread by you and claims that have been proven untrue here several times. Repeating them does not make them any more true than the first 24 times you posted it.

    Remember this? Its even on the cover !
    Strike commanderjpg

    Developer(s)Origin Systems
    Publisher(s)Electronic Arts
    Director(s)Chris Roberts
    Producer(s)Chris Roberts
    Designer(s)Chris Roberts
    Jeff George
    Programmer(s)Jason Templeman
    Chris Roberts
    Paul Isaac


    Have fun

    Citing wikipedia LMAO.

    But still it was DESIGNED by Chris Roberts, so once again a semantics debate. he has never ever been in charge of a project AT THE TIME of its release. Even citing wikipedia you can read that even with revised history and trying to paint it in the best light it says this (for now until some rando can change it)....


    Development[edit]

    The Strike Commander project took more than four years and over a million man hours on background development. Very little of that production time turned out to be actually usable in the final product, as at least one and possibly several complete project "reboots" were required to refine the graphical engine to a playable state. Nevertheless, some successful gameplay elements from Strike Commander were re-used by other more notable Origin products such as Privateer and the Wing Commander series. Chris Roberts, in the game's manual, compares the game's long development time with the events in the 1991 documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, a film account of what it took to get the 1979 film Apocalypse Now made.


    The best and most telling part was the million man hours and very little of that usable. Pretty good description, and goes right along with what is happening now.


    As far as the lawsuit. I imagine Crytek is waiting for them to maybe possibly release something and get some money before they sue. Hard to get blood from a turnip. I also suspect the money 'invested' was what Crytek was hoping to get a settlement from, which was probably more than likely 'protected'.

    I said it when it happened no one was going to get anything from them because they dont have anything. They have more shells than an almond farm. So the best thing Crytek can do at this point is get on the dream wagon with all the other white knights hope something gets released worthy of retail sales and get their money there. Only ones making money now are lawyers.

    SQ 42 is their only hope I think, it is plausible THAT might release if they get another 200 million. Short of that I doubt it.
    PhaserlightNorseGodtweedledumb99alkarionlog
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,425
    rodarin said:

    As far as the lawsuit. I imagine Crytek is waiting for them to maybe possibly release something and get some money before they sue. Hard to get blood from a turnip. I also suspect the money 'invested' was what Crytek was hoping to get a settlement from, which was probably more than likely 'protected'.

    Invested money is not protected from lawsuits.

    Also more importantly, Crytek doesn't need to target that money specifically because backer money is not protected from lawsuits either. If Crytek wins, Crytek will get the money.

     
Sign In or Register to comment.