› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

1…2728303233…53

Comments

  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    gervaise1 said:
    ScotchUp said:
    SpottyGekko said:
    ScotchUp said:
    <snip>
    Crytek's only justification for requesting financial information would be to determine the size of their damages claim, i.e. they want to know how much they can reasonably ask for.

    An audited Profit and Loss statement is quite adequate in that regard, unless Crytek want to challenge the integrity of whichever accounting firm does CIG's audits. Details of operating expenditure are outside the scope of this case, so I doubt there'll be much of the "fun" you're hoping for, lol
    I agree but we can always pray, it would be so much fun.
    I see a teeny, tiny problem with the idea of a P&L statement.

    SC has not launched; SC has not made any profit; it has been said that all crowdfunding raised will be spent on the game; it has been said by many that CiG hasn't enough money so would that be a loss? in which case Crytek's % formula would probably indicate that CiG have overpaid! Oh no.

    Now future sales might generate a profit.

    As it stands today though the "company" may very well be set up as a not-for-profit - akin to them saying all kickstarter funds will be used on the game. Easy enough to set up a new subsidiary later to handle any "for profit" sales. Which would be the "smart" thing to do.

    Either way SC is a development project. And a P&L statement on any developmet is something like:  Profit = 0; Money spent = Loss; anything under the sun that might generate a tax credit / off-set. That is the nature of development. They are financial blackholes.
    Honestly, please never ever start a business - it won't end well.
    BabuinixScotchUp

    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.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    Turrican187 said:
    gervaise1 said:
    ScotchUp said:
    SpottyGekko said:
    ScotchUp said:
    <snip>
    Crytek's only justification for requesting financial information would be to determine the size of their damages claim, i.e. they want to know how much they can reasonably ask for.

    An audited Profit and Loss statement is quite adequate in that regard, unless Crytek want to challenge the integrity of whichever accounting firm does CIG's audits. Details of operating expenditure are outside the scope of this case, so I doubt there'll be much of the "fun" you're hoping for, lol
    I agree but we can always pray, it would be so much fun.
    I see a teeny, tiny problem with the idea of a P&L statement.

    SC has not launched; SC has not made any profit; it has been said that all crowdfunding raised will be spent on the game; it has been said by many that CiG hasn't enough money so would that be a loss? in which case Crytek's % formula would probably indicate that CiG have overpaid! Oh no.

    Now future sales might generate a profit.

    As it stands today though the "company" may very well be set up as a not-for-profit - akin to them saying all kickstarter funds will be used on the game. Easy enough to set up a new subsidiary later to handle any "for profit" sales. Which would be the "smart" thing to do.

    Either way SC is a development project. And a P&L statement on any developmet is something like:  Profit = 0; Money spent = Loss; anything under the sun that might generate a tax credit / off-set. That is the nature of development. They are financial blackholes.
    Honestly, please never ever start a business - it won't end well.
    Sounds like you shouldn't prepare any financial statements. In simple terms companies class "development" as a loss. And in some cases e.g. Sony's financial report just before they sold SoE the loss stays a loss.
  • Turrican187Turrican187 Member UncommonPosts: 787
    My company runs well, thank you.
    But it's sad to hear that you see Star Citizens development as a 100% loss.

    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: 10,297
    Turrican187 said:
    My company runs well, thank you.
    But it's sad to hear that you see Star Citizens development as a 100% loss.
    Says the man who pathetically  failed at faking a Star Citizen forum post to make CIG look bad. See the other currently active thread here in this forum. 

    Just because R&D and development is usually calculated as a "loss" w.r.t. taxes - often to get a tax reduction - does not mean that this "loss" will not result in a highly successful finished product.  


    Have fun
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Erillion said:
    Just because R&D and development is usually calculated as a "loss" w.r.t. taxes - often to get a tax reduction - does not mean that this "loss" will not result in a highly successful finished product.  


    So.... like Hollywood accounting?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

    BabuinixKefo
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    Erillion said:
    Just because R&D and development is usually calculated as a "loss" w.r.t. taxes - often to get a tax reduction - does not mean that this "loss" will not result in a highly successful finished product.  


    So.... like Hollywood accounting?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting


    More like this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_Development_Tax_Credit


    There seems to be such a tax incentive for computer (game) companies in the UK and Germany too. CIG is taking advantage of it. It nets them millions in tax break money. Most likely one of the reasons they have Foundry 42 development studios in those countries.

    While CryTek tries them same in Turkey. Getting a lot of hyper-exaggerated talk ("hundreds of millions of dollars") and little in the way of real money, according to the press.

    Most likely another reason why CryTek is now trying to get a pound of flesh out of CIG.



    Have fun


    Babuinix
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    edited March 2018
    Erillion said:
    Erillion said:
    Just because R&D and development is usually calculated as a "loss" w.r.t. taxes - often to get a tax reduction - does not mean that this "loss" will not result in a highly successful finished product.  


    So.... like Hollywood accounting?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting


    More like this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_and_Development_Tax_Credit


    There seems to be such a tax incentive for computer (game) companies in the UK and Germany too. CIG is taking advantage of it. It nets them millions in tax break money. Most likely one of the reasons they have Foundry 42 development studios in those countries.

    While CryTek tries them same in Turkey. Getting a lot of hyper-exaggerated talk ("hundreds of millions of dollars") and little in the way of real money, according to the press.

    Most likely another reason why CryTek is now trying to get a pound of flesh out of CIG.



    Have fun


    Yet, CryTek seems to only be protecting their code. How CryTek has become the bad guy here when they created demos that truly look amazing, confounds me. If not for those demos, SC would never have received all those sales on JPEG's.
    Orinori
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    It doesn't even matter what the law or any of us think,the truth is Chris Robert's is definiotely 100% up to no good.Just because he can find some loopholes in the law to bend the law in his favor doesn't make his morals any better,he still scum imo.

    He has also LIED to al of his backers so again,why anyone would defend this scum is beyond me,i guess fanbois of a game put egos and fanbois above morals,who knows what goes through some people's minds.
    Babuinix

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

  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    ScotchUp said:
    Yet, CryTek seems to only be protecting their code. How CryTek has become the bad guy here when they created demos that truly look amazing, confounds me. If not for those demos, SC would never have received all those sales on JPEG's.

    Here we have CIG that said they did the demos. And then CryTek that said they did the demos.
    I ask myself how they did the demos without input from Chris Roberts - but hey .... !

    Here we have a company with an open development, even when it hurts (like announcing delays).  There we have a company that repeatedly did not pay wages to its employees for months and which had to close 2/3 of its studios worldwide.

    Here we have a company that advances the engine to achieve new things. There we have a company that sells out its old engine version wholesale to anyone that is not on trees by the count of three. And the latter company then "protects their code" by demanding all the new innovative code that OTHERS have added to the original old code.

    I know whom I do believe.

    I know who I believe is the one responsible for the marketing success of SC.

    And it aint CryTek IMHO.


    Have fun
    Babuinix
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,888
    Erillion said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Yet, CryTek seems to only be protecting their code. How CryTek has become the bad guy here when they created demos that truly look amazing, confounds me. If not for those demos, SC would never have received all those sales on JPEG's.

    Here we have CIG that said they did the demos. And then CryTek that said they did the demos....
    Probably both of them participated in making the demos.
     
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:

    Here we have CIG that said they did the demos. And then CryTek that said they did the demos....
    Probably both of them participated in making the demos.

    Absolutely possible.

    My personal opinion is that the former CryTek engineers that now work for CIG were most likely the ones that did work on the demos together with CIG. Possibly already planning their move to CIG and using that work as the entry ticket (which may be better than waiting for CryTek to finally pay their overdue paychecks back then).


    Have fun 
    Phry
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Erillion said:
    Vrika said:
    Erillion said:

    Here we have CIG that said they did the demos. And then CryTek that said they did the demos....
    Probably both of them participated in making the demos.

    Absolutely possible.

    My personal opinion is that the former CryTek engineers that now work for CIG were most likely the ones that did work on the demos together with CIG. Possibly already planning their move to CIG and using that work as the entry ticket (which may be better than waiting for CryTek to finally pay their overdue paychecks back then).


    Have fun 
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited March 2018
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.
    Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.
    Phry
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.
    Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    Zandog

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    MadFrenchie said:
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    The employees and their work would be irrelevant there, not even the work you do in your present company belongs to you in such situation, it's about the company working for another company, working for a client (CIG) on such scenario.
    Phry
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    MadFrenchie said:
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    The employees and their work would be irrelevant there, not even the work you do in your present company belongs to you in such situation, it's about the company working for another company, working for a client (CIG) on such scenario.
    Erillion was talking about the employees doing work as preparation for the move to CIG.  That is irrelevant to the case; even if they moved to CIG, any work they did while employees of Crytek is property of Crytek.

    image
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    MadFrenchie said:
    Erillion was talking about the employees doing work as preparation for the move to CIG.  That is irrelevant to the case; even if they moved to CIG, any work they did while employees of Crytek is property of Crytek.
    I was talking about them showing off their talent and creativity.

    Which would make it easier later to move from CryTek to CIG.

    And any work they did as employees of CryTek and which was handed over by CryTek to the client as part of a contract then belonged to the client. in this case CIG.


    Have fun
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    MaxBacon said:
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.
    Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    That gets a little sticky when the employer is defaulting on the employees compensation. 
    Erillion

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    laserit said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.
    Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    That gets a little sticky when the employer is defaulting on the employees compensation. 
    According to whom? If a contract continues to exist between employee and employer then whether they are paying wages or not is irrelevant unless there is some precedent or clause in the contract allowing such a thing.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited March 2018
    laserit said:
    MaxBacon said:
    Unfortunately, if they were still considered employees of Crytek, any work they did there belongs to Crytek, no matter if they eventually moved to CIG.
    Says who it belongs to them? If in agreement they develop X for their client it's theirs (the client) once it's delivered. It would have to be implicit that work, assets, etc... made for the client belongs to them, not to the client, what doesn't make sense to me.
    Any work you do as an employee of another company doesn't belong to you.  It belongs to the company.  So if they eventually became CIG employees, it makes no difference in the case of ownership of work they did prior to leaving Crytek.
    That gets a little sticky when the employer is defaulting on the employees compensation. 
    I get what you're saying from an ethical perspective, just not sure the law agrees.  Even if there were no compensation: did they perform the work on equipment owned by Crytek?  Did they perform the work utilizing services/utilities provided by Crytek (i.e. internet access, software licenses, etc.)?  If the answer to those are yes, Crytek has a claim to ownership of the work.


    image
  • LinifLinif Member UncommonPosts: 338
    edited March 2018
    Linif said:
    Durzax said:
    Talonsin said:
    Durzax said:



    @Talonsin,

    You have receipts to prove that.  
    @Durzax

    No, you are absolutely correct that lawyers work for free and since CIG is a company funded almost entirely of backer money, there is no way backer money could be used to pay the lawyers defending against this lawsuit.  Thank you for being objective and basing your comments on reality.  I look forward to more of your informed posting.

    TTFN


    100% conjecture that the crowdfunding money is being used. 
    Unless you have accounting documents that show expenses line by line with all of the correlating CIG bank account receipts differentiated from Chris Roberts personal bank account transactional occurrences.
    However, you may freely continue to populate the land of extreme delusion all you like.
    There is no conjecture required, crowdsourced money WILL be used to pay every penny of this legal battle, just as it is used to cover any other expense.

    That's what the funding is for, it covers the cost of development, which includes the operating costs of the company by default. CIG has no other sources of income AFAIK.
    I wonder if that's why they're looking for the financials. To prove that backer money is going towards legal fees etc.

    Would there be a legal issue there if that was discovered?
    Not in the slightest, lol

    Are there really people out there that believe crowdsourced funds must ONLY be used to pay developer salaries ? The mind boggles...
    Forgive me if I'm not an armchair lawyer. I don't understand the law to any degree, it was just a simple question.

    I'd imagine the backers and such wouldn't take kindly to their money being used IF CIG loses the lawsuit?
  • ErillionErillion Member EpicPosts: 10,297
    >>>>
    I'd imagine the backers and such wouldn't take kindly to their money being used IF CIG loses the lawsuit?
    >>>>

    The general mood on the backer forum as i saw it was "Kick their butt and do what is necessary !"


    Have fun

  • LinifLinif Member UncommonPosts: 338
    Erillion said:
    >>>>
    I'd imagine the backers and such wouldn't take kindly to their money being used IF CIG loses the lawsuit?
    >>>>

    The general mood on the backer forum as i saw it was "Kick their butt and do what is necessary !"


    Have fun

    Right, but I'm looking toward the result that may end up with CIG having their butts kicked. I can see what the fanatics will do, but what of the average gamer who's invested only to find that CIG hasn't been playing ball legally? You reckon they'll bury their head in the sand?

    Anyone else notice how fan-atic and fan-boy start off the same? Hmm
  • sgelsgel Member EpicPosts: 2,197
    Erillion said:
    >>>>
    I'd imagine the backers and such wouldn't take kindly to their money being used IF CIG loses the lawsuit?
    >>>>

    The general mood on the backer forum as i saw it was "Kick their butt and do what is necessary !"


    Have fun

    Has the general mood in the backer forum ever been negative to something CIG has done?
    Or are they infallible ?

    ..Cake..

  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    sgel said:
    Erillion said:
    >>>>
    I'd imagine the backers and such wouldn't take kindly to their money being used IF CIG loses the lawsuit?
    >>>>

    The general mood on the backer forum as i saw it was "Kick their butt and do what is necessary !"


    Have fun

    Has the general mood in the backer forum ever been negative to something CIG has done?
    Or are they infallible ?
    Generally for about 10 minutes before the mods come in and lock/delete threads for their FUD rule infractions thereby giving the appearance that everything is unicorn farts and rainbows
    Linif
This discussion has been closed.