Howdy, Stranger!

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

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

1192022242553

Comments

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,295
    MaxBacon said:
    Thanks for posting that, as I hadn't seen this document in full.

    That portion will hinge on whether a court believes the standalone SQ42 directly violates that definition.  If it doesn't, OR it's inconclusive, the recital will come into play to inform the reader of intent.

    As I understand it, SQ42 is not currently available, correct?  As in, we don't know if it will be accessed through the regular Star Citizen client (i.e. like a Warhammer title might include multiple "campaigns" but all are accessed through the same client).  If so, it will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the other parts of the definition without having evidence to really examine that portion at this time.
    Yes it is not available, for all we know you might need the SC client to run SQ42, because after all, the standalone pledge of SQ42 does come with Arena Commander and Star Marine so it by itself has a SC install without the PU access.

    Over that, there is the other point that is indeed where on what was licensed they specifically separate both titles as their own games, so both are focusing their argumentation on different perceptions of the same thing.
    For all we have heard so far you have to run SQ42 from the SC client start-up screen. Although nothing is written in stone yet. However IMHO if CIG did not plan it before, they will for sure do it now.

    Because it also gives you access to Arena Commander and Star Marine, which is available to SQ42 players too.

    That a common client is used may be a powerful argument at court that SQ42 and SC belong together, as stated in the publicly available GLA document.


    Have fun
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Erillion said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Thanks for posting that, as I hadn't seen this document in full.

    That portion will hinge on whether a court believes the standalone SQ42 directly violates that definition.  If it doesn't, OR it's inconclusive, the recital will come into play to inform the reader of intent.

    As I understand it, SQ42 is not currently available, correct?  As in, we don't know if it will be accessed through the regular Star Citizen client (i.e. like a Warhammer title might include multiple "campaigns" but all are accessed through the same client).  If so, it will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the other parts of the definition without having evidence to really examine that portion at this time.
    Yes it is not available, for all we know you might need the SC client to run SQ42, because after all, the standalone pledge of SQ42 does come with Arena Commander and Star Marine so it by itself has a SC install without the PU access.

    Over that, there is the other point that is indeed where on what was licensed they specifically separate both titles as their own games, so both are focusing their argumentation on different perceptions of the same thing.
    For all we have heard so far you have to run SQ42 from the SC client start-up screen. Although nothing is written in stone yet. However IMHO if CIG did not plan it before, they will for sure do it now.

    Because it also gives you access to Arena Commander and Star Marine, which is available to SQ42 players too.

    That a common client is used may be a powerful argument at court that SQ42 and SC belong together, as stated in the publicly available GLA document.


    Have fun
    The chances of CIG NOT moving forward with intent to include it in the same client should be juuuussstttt about zero at this point. :P
    Erilliongervaise1

    image
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    SQ42 was suppose to be a stand alone and then it got moved into SC. If it is a stand alone game then how come is wasn't released when they said they could do it for like 17 million.

    The goal posts keep moving..........taking that money

    PACKAGE - SQUADRON 42 STANDALONE PLEDGE


    The game is currently in alpha version

    Squadron 42 is currently in development. On release, it will be available for download to all who purchase this package. 

    Found this....
    On February 14, Squadron 42 will be available as a standalone game or as an add-on for Star Citizen itself. What that means is if you want to get both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 for as little as possible, you should pledge now before the two break up.


    I remember when they pulled SQ42 as a stand alone and rolled it into SC.


    All sorts of shady maneuvers.

    No, it's the opposite.

    SQ 42 was supposed to be a part of Star Citizen, and later on they made it available also as a standalone game.
     
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,882
    Erillion said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Thanks for posting that, as I hadn't seen this document in full.

    That portion will hinge on whether a court believes the standalone SQ42 directly violates that definition.  If it doesn't, OR it's inconclusive, the recital will come into play to inform the reader of intent.

    As I understand it, SQ42 is not currently available, correct?  As in, we don't know if it will be accessed through the regular Star Citizen client (i.e. like a Warhammer title might include multiple "campaigns" but all are accessed through the same client).  If so, it will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the other parts of the definition without having evidence to really examine that portion at this time.
    Yes it is not available, for all we know you might need the SC client to run SQ42, because after all, the standalone pledge of SQ42 does come with Arena Commander and Star Marine so it by itself has a SC install without the PU access.

    Over that, there is the other point that is indeed where on what was licensed they specifically separate both titles as their own games, so both are focusing their argumentation on different perceptions of the same thing.
    For all we have heard so far you have to run SQ42 from the SC client start-up screen. Although nothing is written in stone yet. However IMHO if CIG did not plan it before, they will for sure do it now.

    Because it also gives you access to Arena Commander and Star Marine, which is available to SQ42 players too.

    That a common client is used may be a powerful argument at court that SQ42 and SC belong together, as stated in the publicly available GLA document.
    I don't think that common client is that good an argument. That interpretation would allow RSI to make infinite games using Cryengine as long as they use common client. I don't think court will interpret "standalone" as a technical direction of how RSI must make further Cryengine games when they agreement was clearly meant to limit the number of games RSI is allowed to make.
    MadFrenchie
     
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Thanks for posting that, as I hadn't seen this document in full.

    That portion will hinge on whether a court believes the standalone SQ42 directly violates that definition.  If it doesn't, OR it's inconclusive, the recital will come into play to inform the reader of intent.

    As I understand it, SQ42 is not currently available, correct?  As in, we don't know if it will be accessed through the regular Star Citizen client (i.e. like a Warhammer title might include multiple "campaigns" but all are accessed through the same client).  If so, it will be interesting to see how the courts interpret the other parts of the definition without having evidence to really examine that portion at this time.
    Yes it is not available, for all we know you might need the SC client to run SQ42, because after all, the standalone pledge of SQ42 does come with Arena Commander and Star Marine so it by itself has a SC install without the PU access.

    Over that, there is the other point that is indeed where on what was licensed they specifically separate both titles as their own games, so both are focusing their argumentation on different perceptions of the same thing.
    For all we have heard so far you have to run SQ42 from the SC client start-up screen. Although nothing is written in stone yet. However IMHO if CIG did not plan it before, they will for sure do it now.

    Because it also gives you access to Arena Commander and Star Marine, which is available to SQ42 players too.

    That a common client is used may be a powerful argument at court that SQ42 and SC belong together, as stated in the publicly available GLA document.
    I don't think that common client is that good an argument. That interpretation would allow RSI to make infinite games using Cryengine as long as they use common client. I don't think court will interpret "standalone" as a technical direction of how RSI must make further Cryengine games when they agreement was clearly meant to limit the number of games RSI is allowed to make.
    I hope it isn't settled prior to hearings.  Not because I wish either company well or destruction, but to satiate my curiosity on how the courts would interpret the entirety of the language.
    Hatefull

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited January 2018
    Vrika said:
    I don't think that common client is that good an argument. That interpretation would allow RSI to make infinite games using Cryengine as long as they use common client. I don't think court will interpret "standalone" as a technical direction of how RSI must make further Cryengine games when they agreement was clearly meant to limit the number of games RSI is allowed to make.
    It is a decent argument I think when cumulated to the fact they did it with SQ42, they haven't done it with something else, they did it with something that IS in the contract, the main description of what defines such "game", featuring SC and SQ42.
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,381
    I just hope the court case moves on to discovery.   Still think Roberts and crew will cave before that happens.   If they still can....

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

  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,464
    How much in damages are we even talking about with this lawsuit?
    --------------------------------------------
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited January 2018
    How much in damages are we even talking about with this lawsuit?
    Part of Leonard French takes he said that seeing it is a 1.8 million contract, where Crytek doesn't own royalties and so, at worse a few millions.

    This not accounting for if this turns into those tricky cases that just drag for long periods of time, well possible they'll spend fortunes in legal fees vs what they can get out of it if ever ruled in their favor.
  • chronoss2015chronoss2015 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    MaxBacon said:
    As this is not a court of law and just a public forum why does your question matter?

    I guess when you cant speak to the comment you go after the one who made the comment.

    Try harder.
    There was pages ago the stream of a copyright lawyer that explained and had its take on this stuff, that is a professional opinion, this is armchair lawyering. These discussions are still opinions but not coming from professional insight, hence the "armchair this or that" term.


    the prob with his video is he is clearly biased in favor of cig and it clearly shows quite a bit , in how he actually ignores the whole bt about exclusivity to use cryengne and no others...its pretty clear....other areas are taken out of context and if you read in context its like a you may add your own code on top of but must use the base engine , of cryteks...

    they are going to lose this plain and simple its a question of how badly on other angles as well.


  • chronoss2015chronoss2015 Member UncommonPosts: 217
    edited January 2018
    Gruug said:
    One, we do not know what the contractual agreement was between Star Citizen and Crytech. There could have been a clause in their contract that stated that Star Citizen had the right to replace the engine at any time if it was deemed needed to develop the game. The game is still in development and changing engines is not an uncommon practice. I would suggest that Crytech's money problems are starting to make them just a bit over reaching in an attempt to save themselves.

    yes you do , google it....its a matter of public record now...if we signed an agreement for you to make a car using my car engne and you decide later to put in a diff engine , ii get to sue you for losses....

    this is that simple....

    especially cause your calling the car the same name as you agreed in the contract .....

    if yoy stopped 100% and started over form scratch and gave t a new name , the only redress , might be any clause where you agree to pay if yo decide to do just that....
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited January 2018
    Gruug said:
    One, we do not know what the contractual agreement was between Star Citizen and Crytech. There could have been a clause in their contract that stated that Star Citizen had the right to replace the engine at any time if it was deemed needed to develop the game. The game is still in development and changing engines is not an uncommon practice. I would suggest that Crytech's money problems are starting to make them just a bit over reaching in an attempt to save themselves.

    yes you do , google it....its a matter of public record now...if we signed an agreement for you to make a car using my car engne and you decide later to put in a diff engine , ii get to sue you for losses....

    this is that simple....

    especially cause your calling the car the same name as you agreed in the contract .....

    if yoy stopped 100% and started over form scratch and gave t a new name , the only redress , might be any clause where you agree to pay if yo decide to do just that....
    What @Gruug said is there may have been a clause  in their contract - in which case they could have changed.

    The assumption is there wasn't. And that CryEngine forms a part of what drives SC. The exclusive argument though - does this relate to how Lumberyard fits in? If so if you agree to use an Android phone and get yourself a Samsung are you compliant?
    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • BabuinixBabuinix Member EpicPosts: 4,259

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,765
    edited January 2018
    the prob with his video is he is clearly biased in favor of cig and it clearly shows quite a bit , in how he actually ignores the whole bt about exclusivity to use cryengne and no others...its pretty clear....other areas are taken out of context and if you read in context its like a you may add your own code on top of but must use the base engine , of cryteks...

    they are going to lose this plain and simple its a question of how badly on other angles as well.
    On your argument, not only by French, siding with CIG with this legal guy take on the exclusivity bit:

    http://www.cgmagonline.com/2018/01/12/crytek-v-star-citizen-defense-lands/ 

    The Lior Lesser take on their response posted yesterday.
    And also this one posted today: 

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180109/06293238967/it-kind-looks-like-crytek-sued-star-citizen-developer-pretending-engine-license-says-something-it-doesnt.shtml

    They haven't ignored the exclusivity, it was addressed on why that complaint is unlikely to stand (point 1 of the first link): "Unless an amendment or communication is later disclosed wherein Cloud Imperium states that it will exclusively use CryEngine, these claims of breach of contract are unlikely to stand, and the reason comes down at least in part to a principle called “the Golden Rule.” "
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    Erillion

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • ShodanasShodanas Member RarePosts: 1,933
    To me it seems as Crytek has set eyes on some of the money CIG raised.
    Erillion
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,295
    edited January 2018
    Uh oh ... now they get down and dirty:

    "THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FAC.."

    Sounds like CryTek was not interested in any bug fixes for years. Bug Fixes that are now part of the court case:

    "...If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will demonstrate that CIG tendered delivery of the bug fixes more than two years ago, but that tender was ignored and then forgotten by Crytek. CIG satisfied any remaining obligation under Section 7.3 of the GLA by delivering an updated version of the bug fixes on January 23, 2018, a delivery that CIG planned to make before Crytek jumped the gun and sued."

    This sentence tells a lot about why CIG switched to Lumberyard:

    "Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship. "


    Have fun


  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    Shodanas said:
    To me it seems as Crytek has set eyes on some of the money CIG raised.
    I may be wrong but all civil acts are going for some kind of monetary compensation

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    Erillion said:
    Uh oh ... now they get down and dirty:

    "THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FAC.."

    Sounds like CryTek was not interested in any bug fixes for years. Bug Fixes that are now part of the court case:

    "...If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will demonstrate that CIG tendered delivery of the bug fixes more than two years ago, but that tender was ignored and then forgotten by Crytek. CIG satisfied any remaining obligation under Section 7.3 of the GLA by delivering an updated version of the bug fixes on January 23, 2018, a delivery that CIG planned to make before Crytek jumped the gun and sued."


    Have fun

    Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship.


    Isn't polite either, the whole thing is written very rough which is kind of senseless because at the moment you don't need to impress a jury.

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    Erillion said:

    "Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship. "


    Have fun


    Is it just me or does the reason “abandoning a sinking ship” feel like it wouldn’t hold up in court as a reason for breaking a contract?
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    Kefo said:
    Erillion said:

    "Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship. "


    Have fun


    Is it just me or does the reason “abandoning a sinking ship” feel like it wouldn’t hold up in court as a reason for breaking a contract?
    in this case it's more a "I believe this ship could sink - lets abandon it" (using CIGs words here)

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    CIG is still insisting on the wrong company thing which is funny because RSI is not mentioned in the 3rd party companies which is like "Sorry Judge Judy I could not attend to the bank heist because I had to murder someone"

    When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
    The cake is a lie.

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,295
    edited January 2018
    xNIAx1 said:
    I don't get why people think this is a legit game. It's obviously the biggest scam in video game history. Everyone that's STILL supporting this game are most likely super wealthy,lonely and probably deeply depressed. You know how long 5 years is? Let me remind you how long 5 years is. Go impregnate a women, 9 months later you gotta human being. 2-3 years later it's walking and talking. And at around 5 years, it's carrying their own backpack, walking into a classroom, learning,absorbing incredible amounts of information.

    Is it setting in yet? It doesn't take a video game developer 5 years to finish a game.

    YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
    Sorry, cannot agree to your arguments -  playing the Alpha version of this game at the moment ;-)

    And while i sniper camp my marks, I smile while reading this forum and listen to the newest chapter in the CIG-CryTek drama.

    While my 3 buddies have set an ambush in the station  ... and our other buddies assault the station. But HEY .... lonely and depressed, right ?! ......


    Have fun


    PS:
    Did you do ANY research how long it takes to create an AAA level game, let alone two in parallel ? It might give you new insight into how long 5 years are when it comes to game development.


    Darkpigeon
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Erillion said:
    Uh oh ... now they get down and dirty:

    "THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE IMMATERIAL, IMPERTINENT, AND SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FAC.."

    Sounds like CryTek was not interested in any bug fixes for years. Bug Fixes that are now part of the court case:

    "...If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will demonstrate that CIG tendered delivery of the bug fixes more than two years ago, but that tender was ignored and then forgotten by Crytek. CIG satisfied any remaining obligation under Section 7.3 of the GLA by delivering an updated version of the bug fixes on January 23, 2018, a delivery that CIG planned to make before Crytek jumped the gun and sued."


    Have fun

    Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship.


    Isn't polite either, the whole thing is written very rough which is kind of senseless because at the moment you don't need to impress a jury.
    AKA grandstanding.
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,295
    Iselin said:
    AKA grandstanding.
    AKA same language style as CryTeks lawyers.


    Have fun
This discussion has been closed.