› ›

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…4344464849…53

Comments

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,502
    Erillion said:
    Bad Press:
    Nestle --> palm oil kills Orang Utans, farmers kicked from their land for water rights
    Bayer (Monsanto) --> Round-Up causing cancer
    VW --> faked emissions  (which i still find laughable, because the typical US landcruiser SUV kicks out four times more than the corrected VW cars do and no one cares, because its an US car ("American first !"))
    Blackwater  (or whatever they call them these days) --> "private" security kills civilians in Iraq
    etc. 
    LOL at these examples.

    Monsanto only remain where they are due to holding a monopoly and suing left, right and centre.
    VW paid out billions to put things right.
    Blackwater have gone through numerous name changes to distance themselves from their past.

    The idea that all PR is good PR is nonsensical.
    KefoHatefull
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    The fact that Bless is an early access release, yet got shredded anyways is only further fuel to my fire.....  Folks didn't even give it that leeway.  As for evidence that release makes a huge difference, you don't have to limit yourself to Bless, just look at....  Well, the industry as a whole.  The game that bounces back from a terrible release is by far the exception, not the rule.

    And LOL if you think the general public isn't going to call out the game if it releases, say, missing a large swathe of content it was advertising, specifically content that they've collected money regarding (stuff like land claims).  You can keep believing it, but don't say I didn't warn you.
    Bless got shredded because they opened up to a larger audience waay too earlier than what they should have, as it's not properly a new game, long history there already.

    Large MMO's tend to bounce back, look at ESO, or even FF XIV, I don't think it's the exception when the developers commit to get it right, on other situations like with Wildstar getting pretty much abandoned was more lack of the devs commitment to it than the people who wanted to play it.

    The game will get called out any way I'm not saying it won't happen, what I said is if the game releases decently polished and overall in the lines of its pitch, what is missing won't be of much bother to the general public; neither is that prospect right now much of a bother to the backers right now because the development continues before and after that "1.0 version", as long that version is not as barebones as the ED release was because that wouldn't really fly in SC.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    The idea that all PR is good PR is nonsensical.
    The fun thing is those game companies are far more resistant to bad PR than what we see with other companies.

    Just see EA, they keep multiplying their profits while keep being voted as the most hated company in America.

    Bad PR in the gaming community flows in the sorts: "I HATE YOU! **throws money at EA** I HATE YOU SO MUCH! **throws more money at EA** I WILL NEVER BUY A GAME FROM YOU AGAIN **buys next shiny game from EA**"
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    The fact that Bless is an early access release, yet got shredded anyways is only further fuel to my fire.....  Folks didn't even give it that leeway.  As for evidence that release makes a huge difference, you don't have to limit yourself to Bless, just look at....  Well, the industry as a whole.  The game that bounces back from a terrible release is by far the exception, not the rule.

    And LOL if you think the general public isn't going to call out the game if it releases, say, missing a large swathe of content it was advertising, specifically content that they've collected money regarding (stuff like land claims).  You can keep believing it, but don't say I didn't warn you.
    Bless got shredded because they opened up to a larger audience waay too earlier than what they should have, as it's not properly a new game, long history there already.

    Large MMO's tend to bounce back, look at ESO, or even FF XIV, I don't think it's the exception when the developers commit to get it right, on other situations like with Wildstar getting pretty much abandoned was more lack of the devs commitment to it than the people who wanted to play it.

    The game will get called out any way I'm not saying it won't happen, what I said is if the game releases decently polished and overall in the lines of its pitch, what is missing won't be of much bother to the general public; neither is that prospect right now much of a bother to the backers right now because the development continues before and after that "1.0 version", as long that version is not as barebones as the ED release was because that wouldn't really fly in SC.
    FF is cited due to how unusual its rebound was, and necessitated the devs drastically changing the game.  ESO's release wasn't bad at all.  Not sure why you included that one.  The worst thing you could cite in the original was a boneheaded move to preclude folks from getting credit for/complete quests together while grouped.

    Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, WAR, the list of MMORPGs that fell flat at release and never recovered is much longer than those who bounced back.  Even NMS likely didn't fully bounce back to the success it could've been had the Next patch been in the game at launch.

    First impressions mean a lot.
    Kefo

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    FF is cited due to how unusual its rebound was, and necessitated the devs drastically changing the game.  ESO's release wasn't bad at all.  Not sure why you included that one.  The worst thing you could cite in the original was a boneheaded move to preclude folks from getting credit for/complete quests together while grouped.

    Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, WAR, the list of MMORPGs that fell flat at release and never recovered is much longer than those who bounced back.  Even NMS likely didn't fully bounce back to the success it could've been had the Next patch been in the game at launch.

    First impressions mean a lot.
    ESO was very weak until Tamariel, they player pops and all spiked to proper MMO levels and washed up a lot of that initial rage about it, even tho still today you easily find people very salty at it.

    First impressions are determining in games that are mostly that product and that's it, in online continuous services like MMO's they show to have a strong ability to regain and grow playerbase even years after release, this is exactly what happened with ESO and several others. I have no doubts with SC they have that potential as long there's commitment from the devs, especially because this is not a watered down type of game like Battle Royales or the typical MMO were so used to.
  • lahnmirlahnmir Member LegendaryPosts: 5,041
    The usual back and forth bickering I see. But one thing annoys me to no end: The amount of funds raised says ZERO about the state or the quality of the game, there is no relation. Succesful funding is based on hype and promises combined with plenty of ways to part with your cash. Thats it, there is no XX million victory dance because it makes the game succesful, it only makes the funding succesful, it isn't proof that the game or the shape it is in is good.

    So, got that off my chest, back to the mud slinging...

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    MadFrenchieHatefull
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...



    'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless. 

    It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.

    It is just huge resource waste....'

    Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited August 2018
    MaxBacon said:
    FF is cited due to how unusual its rebound was, and necessitated the devs drastically changing the game.  ESO's release wasn't bad at all.  Not sure why you included that one.  The worst thing you could cite in the original was a boneheaded move to preclude folks from getting credit for/complete quests together while grouped.

    Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, WAR, the list of MMORPGs that fell flat at release and never recovered is much longer than those who bounced back.  Even NMS likely didn't fully bounce back to the success it could've been had the Next patch been in the game at launch.

    First impressions mean a lot.
    ESO was very weak until Tamariel, they player pops and all spiked to proper MMO levels and washed up a lot of that initial rage about it, even tho still today you easily find people very salty at it.

    First impressions are determining in games that are mostly that product and that's it, in online continuous services like MMO's they show to have a strong ability to regain and grow playerbase even years after release, this is exactly what happened with ESO and several others. I have no doubts with SC they have that potential as long there's commitment from the devs, especially because this is not a watered down type of game like Battle Royales or the typical MMO were so used to.
    Again, ESO wasn't bad at release.  It aggregated on Metacritic to a 74%.  Metacritic doesn't allow review updates, so that's a release score.  That's not bad, considering a scale of 1-10, it's solidly above average.  Not sure why you insist on espousing that ESO was a failed game that came back from the brink.  It did no such thing, and release reviews didn't show it to be a bad game at the time of release.

    image
  • KefoKefo Member EpicPosts: 4,229
    MadFrenchie said:
    MaxBacon said:
    The fact that Bless is an early access release, yet got shredded anyways is only further fuel to my fire.....  Folks didn't even give it that leeway.  As for evidence that release makes a huge difference, you don't have to limit yourself to Bless, just look at....  Well, the industry as a whole.  The game that bounces back from a terrible release is by far the exception, not the rule.

    And LOL if you think the general public isn't going to call out the game if it releases, say, missing a large swathe of content it was advertising, specifically content that they've collected money regarding (stuff like land claims).  You can keep believing it, but don't say I didn't warn you.
    Bless got shredded because they opened up to a larger audience waay too earlier than what they should have, as it's not properly a new game, long history there already.

    Large MMO's tend to bounce back, look at ESO, or even FF XIV, I don't think it's the exception when the developers commit to get it right, on other situations like with Wildstar getting pretty much abandoned was more lack of the devs commitment to it than the people who wanted to play it.

    The game will get called out any way I'm not saying it won't happen, what I said is if the game releases decently polished and overall in the lines of its pitch, what is missing won't be of much bother to the general public; neither is that prospect right now much of a bother to the backers right now because the development continues before and after that "1.0 version", as long that version is not as barebones as the ED release was because that wouldn't really fly in SC.
    FF is cited due to how unusual its rebound was, and necessitated the devs drastically changing the game.  ESO's release wasn't bad at all.  Not sure why you included that one.  The worst thing you could cite in the original was a boneheaded move to preclude folks from getting credit for/complete quests together while grouped.

    Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, WAR, the list of MMORPGs that fell flat at release and never recovered is much longer than those who bounced back.  Even NMS likely didn't fully bounce back to the success it could've been had the Next patch been in the game at launch.

    First impressions mean a lot.
    So much this. FFXIV is the exception since it fell flat on its face and it only limped along because the devs didn’t charge a monthly fee before shutting it down and reworking the game.


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    Kefo said:
    So much this. FFXIV is the exception since it fell flat on its face and it only limped along because the devs didn’t charge a monthly fee before shutting it down and reworking the game.
    This would have been Bless Online IF the devs managed this comeback to actually work, but no it was absolute madness (by their own fault). But the point does stand that the gaming community was even hyping their comeback and the attempt of the devs to get the game on a good place.

    Commitment is much important, and we see rare examples because aside from the endless copy/paste MMO's that fail, is the devs that do not handle the opportunity they have to make it work, most times they just move on and are unwilling to well, refactor parts of the game that desperately need that to work, this is what the FF devs were willing to do.
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,395
    edited August 2018
    Erillion said:

    >>>>
    any press is good press
    >>>>

    *** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

    Seemingly the answer is:  YES



    Have fun


    I bought this line, until I checked to see how the Guinness World Records are tallied:  An affidavit.  They don't actually check the books involved.   However, if Crytek's discovery goes through as claimed, Crytek will get to peek at it.  

    Of course, I have always thought that there will be a settlement out of court, because of this very thing.   Personally, I would prefer the discovery to go public.  If things are on the up and up, supporters of the SC project would get a feather in their cap.  
    MadFrenchie

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

  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Arglebargle said:
    Erillion said:

    >>>>
    any press is good press
    >>>>

    *** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

    Seemingly the answer is:  YES



    Have fun


    I bought this line, until I checked to see how the Guinness World Records are tallied:  An affidavit.  They don't actually check the books involved.   However, if Crytek's discovery goes through as claimed, Crytek will get to peek at it.  

    Of course, I have always thought that there will be a settlement out of court, because of this very thing.   Personally, I would prefer the discovery to go public.  If things are on the up and up, supporters of the SC project would get a feather in their cap.  
    It never will though. I can't think of a single trial where a company was sued and had it's books released to the public, there are protections in discovery against that very thing. 
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Balmong said:
    Arglebargle said:
    Erillion said:

    >>>>
    any press is good press
    >>>>

    *** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

    Seemingly the answer is:  YES



    Have fun


    I bought this line, until I checked to see how the Guinness World Records are tallied:  An affidavit.  They don't actually check the books involved.   However, if Crytek's discovery goes through as claimed, Crytek will get to peek at it.  

    Of course, I have always thought that there will be a settlement out of court, because of this very thing.   Personally, I would prefer the discovery to go public.  If things are on the up and up, supporters of the SC project would get a feather in their cap.  
    It never will though. I can't think of a single trial where a company was sued and had it's books released to the public, there are protections in discovery against that very thing. 
    If the judge attempted to publicly open CIG's books, it would both be precedent-setting (say, the judge attempts to force them to because, in the judge's eye, the public has de facto become part of the company's organization due to the funding source for the project and has a viable interest that should be protected within the company) as well as challenged by CIG.
    Hatefull

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    If the judge attempted to publicly open CIG's books, it would both be precedent-setting (say, the judge attempts to force them to because, in the judge's eye, the public has de facto become part of the company's organization due to the funding source for the project and has a viable interest that should be protected within the company) as well as challenged by CIG.
    It's 100% irrelevant to the case, the case is between 2 private companies to matters that involve the contract between those 2 private companies, the public has nothing to do with it and a judge would is not just going to order such without a direct relevance to the case/trial; that could even be abuse of power forcing something beyond the scope of the case out of personal opinion.
    MadFrenchie
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    Let's say the YouTube Lawyer is right, CIG is in the right to change engines when they want. So if they do then anything they made in the past will need to be deleted from their website, they would have to create their own demos instead of using the one's CT created. This would throw CIG right back to square one. Anything made/created has to be wiped away to data heaven or given to CT.

    So I guess if Judge agrees with YouTube Lawyer(s) then the first day of making the game is right around the corner. So would that be 4, 5, 6, or 7 years gone? CIG will need to prove the exact day and date they switched to another engine that isn't associated with CT.
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    ScotchUp said:
    Let's say the YouTube Lawyer is right, CIG is in the right to change engines when they want. So if they do then anything they made in the past will need to be deleted from their website, they would have to create their own demos instead of using the one's CT created. This would throw CIG right back to square one. Anything made/created has to be wiped away to data heaven or given to CT.

    So I guess if Judge agrees with YouTube Lawyer(s) then the first day of making the game is right around the corner. So would that be 4, 5, 6, or 7 years gone? CIG will need to prove the exact day and date they switched to another engine that isn't associated with CT.
    But it's not the Youtube lawyer, Crytek pretty much gives in to that the moment they are amending the complaint changing the wording, from can't USE another engine to can't PROMOTE another engine.

    The date would be the date they announced the switch, this because as just mentioned they directed the complaint to be about promoting another engine, something done when they announced the engine change.

    And the wipe of data is a silly argument; I don't think you can go apply a contract "backyards", when say a video demo was made under CE they were under the proper contract license that allowed them to, you can't at a later date say "you can't have X video of something made with my engine" when you had the license active when you did such video.
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    MaxBacon said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Let's say the YouTube Lawyer is right, CIG is in the right to change engines when they want. So if they do then anything they made in the past will need to be deleted from their website, they would have to create their own demos instead of using the one's CT created. This would throw CIG right back to square one. Anything made/created has to be wiped away to data heaven or given to CT.

    So I guess if Judge agrees with YouTube Lawyer(s) then the first day of making the game is right around the corner. So would that be 4, 5, 6, or 7 years gone? CIG will need to prove the exact day and date they switched to another engine that isn't associated with CT.
    But it's not the Youtube lawyer, Crytek pretty much gives in to that the moment they are amending the complaint changing the wording, from can't USE another engine to can't PROMOTE another engine.

    The date would be the date they announced the switch, this because as just mentioned they directed the complaint to be about promoting another engine, something done when they announced the engine change.

    And the wipe of data is a silly argument; I don't think you can go apply a contract "backyards", when say a video demo was made under CE they were under the proper contract license that allowed them to, you can't at a later date say "you can't have X video of something made with my engine" when you had the license active when you did such video.
    Yet, you are ignoring the issue of CIG having to restart the game from scratch, so can you answer what that date was and how many years of development just went poof? Also am sure CT will be going through all data to make sure their original code isn't being used. Either way, this will be fun to watch and Roberts better start covering his butt.

    Sorry Max but CT will make sure none of their code is being used in SC or SQ42. Roberts has opened a can of worms.

    Also, I remember Amazon saying LY only used a very little of CT code, so shouldn't be hard to see what code is being used now. I bet these videos you been posting on this site has a lot of CT code.
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    If the judge attempted to publicly open CIG's books, it would both be precedent-setting (say, the judge attempts to force them to because, in the judge's eye, the public has de facto become part of the company's organization due to the funding source for the project and has a viable interest that should be protected within the company) as well as challenged by CIG.
    It's 100% irrelevant to the case, the case is between 2 private companies to matters that involve the contract between those 2 private companies, the public has nothing to do with it and a judge would is not just going to order such without a direct relevance to the case/trial; that could even be abuse of power forcing something beyond the scope of the case out of personal opinion.
    Oh no I agree, I highly doubt anything of the sort happens.  Which is why I mentioned it would be precedent-setting.  I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it didn't translate well to text!

    image
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    ScotchUp said:
    Yet, you are ignoring the issue of CIG having to restart the game from scratch, so can you answer what that date was and how many years of development just went poof? Also am sure CT will be going through all data to make sure their original code isn't being used. Either way, this will be fun to watch and Roberts better start covering his butt.

    Sorry Max but CT will make sure none of their code is being used in SC or SQ42. Roberts has opened a can of worms.

    Also, I remember Amazon saying LY only used a very little of CT code, so shouldn't be hard to see what code is being used now. I bet these videos you been posting on this site has a lot of CT code.
    You are ignoring that Lumberyard was like what... 99.8% the exact code as the CE? You could have started from scratch, just by copy/pasting it and converting the modified parts. Their original code is used, but their original code is also Lumberyard's original code, so they can't argue that, only on code that specifically exists in CE and SC codebase that does not exist on LY.

    Your last paragraph is the absolute opposite, "Lumberyard is 99.8% stock CRYENGINE 3.8 tech.", not anymore but this was how it first was when it branched off and was published.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    Back in May 2017,

    "CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

    I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    ScotchUp said:
    Back in May 2017,

    "CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

    I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

    Not when its first builds were released. Lumberyard was literally Cryengine cluttered with Amazon's plugins. This is why at first the scripts and such for CE would work on LY, as the engine develops 1 year later it diverged enough for that no longer be the case.

    What it is "at this time" doesn't matter, as long it was in LY's codebase at any point, they're licensed for it so CT can't go after that code.
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    MaxBacon said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Back in May 2017,

    "CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

    I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

    Not when its first builds were released. Lumberyard was literally Cryengine cluttered with Amazon's plugins. This is why at first the scripts and such for CE would work on LY, as the engine develops 1 year later it diverged enough for that no longer be the case.
    Your reaching Max, there will be a big difference with version code CIG was licensed for and the version Amazon used. But you keep wanting to go back in time, the code, once CT looks at both engines, is where Roberts will have a problem. Like I stated this will be fun to watch play out, YouTube lawyers will be found to be full of it with what well end up coming out.
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member LegendaryPosts: 7,766
    edited August 2018
    ScotchUp said:
    Your reaching Max, there will be a big difference with version code CIG was licensed for and the version Amazon used. But you keep wanting to go back in time, the code, once CT looks at both engines, is where Roberts will have a problem. Like I stated this will be fun to watch play out, YouTube lawyers will be found to be full of it with what well end up coming out. 
    It was very much the same code, Cryengine stock code. Even DX12 and stuff as that, were not on the initial releases of LY, the main modifications to the engine happened over time. With it licensed you're also not required to use its latest version, devs cherry pick what they merge, as SC version was then stated as 50% custom, the amount of custom work merged into LY is where CE (the base for the refactored code) can exist.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    ScotchUp said:
    Back in May 2017,

    "CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

    I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

    Err ... which is what Max said and what was discussed last Christmas.

    Pre-LY SC was using: CryEngine 3.8 + CiG written code.
    Post LY SC is using LY + CiG written code.

    Since LY = CryEngine 3.8 + Amazon written code
    SC is using "CryEngine 3.8" + Amazon written code + CiG written code.

    So no going back to the start, scrapping what they have done etc. 


    Now whilst CryEngine 3.8 is ..... roll of the drums ..... CryEngine 3.8 there is a difference. 

    Originally CiG was using CryEngine 3.8 via their agreement with Crysis. Now however CiG are using the CryEngine 3.8 code via their agreement with Amazon. 

    Which is what I have always considered to be at the heart of Crysis's complaint.

    By "changing engines" CiG - from the date they changed - are no longer governed by the agreement they made with Crysis (being tied instead to the agreement they have with Amazon who in turn have an agreement with Crysis.)

    Providing - of course - the agreement they signed with CiG allows them to change engine. Which Crysis argued that CiG couldn't but - it seems - the ruling is they can.

    Everything else if fluff imo.
    Erillion
  • ScotchUpScotchUp Member UncommonPosts: 228
    gervaise1 said:
    ScotchUp said:
    Back in May 2017,

    "CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

    I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

    Err ... which is what Max said and what was discussed last Christmas.

    Pre-LY SC was using: CryEngine 3.8 + CiG written code.
    Post LY SC is using LY + CiG written code.

    Since LY = CryEngine 3.8 + Amazon written code
    SC is using "CryEngine 3.8" + Amazon written code + CiG written code.

    So no going back to the start, scrapping what they have done etc. 


    Now whilst CryEngine 3.8 is ..... roll of the drums ..... CryEngine 3.8 there is a difference. 

    Originally CiG was using CryEngine 3.8 via their agreement with Crysis. Now however CiG are using the CryEngine 3.8 code via their agreement with Amazon. 

    Which is what I have always considered to be at the heart of Crysis's complaint.

    By "changing engines" CiG - from the date they changed - are no longer governed by the agreement they made with Crysis (being tied instead to the agreement they have with Amazon who in turn have an agreement with Crysis.)

    Providing - of course - the agreement they signed with CiG allows them to change engine. Which Crysis argued that CiG couldn't but - it seems - the ruling is they can.

    Everything else if fluff imo.
    Yet the only opinion that will count is the Judge and it's not looking good for CIG.
    “The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”
    ― George Carlin
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,395
    Balmong said:
    Arglebargle said:
    Erillion said:

    >>>>
    any press is good press
    >>>>

    *** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

    Seemingly the answer is:  YES



    Have fun


    I bought this line, until I checked to see how the Guinness World Records are tallied:  An affidavit.  They don't actually check the books involved.   However, if Crytek's discovery goes through as claimed, Crytek will get to peek at it.  

    Of course, I have always thought that there will be a settlement out of court, because of this very thing.   Personally, I would prefer the discovery to go public.  If things are on the up and up, supporters of the SC project would get a feather in their cap.  
    It never will though. I can't think of a single trial where a company was sued and had it's books released to the public, there are protections in discovery against that very thing. 
    Once it moves beyond the purview of the folks at CIG, it's no longer under their control.  It will leak.  These things always do.   Someone will talk privately.  My distaste for Chris Roberts comes solely from talking to groups of people at the time of the kickstarter, people who worked with him at Origin.  None of them want to go on record, 'cause they still work in the games industry, but in private they are brutally honest.

    Crytek's period of playing nice seems to have passed.  We'll see where it leads.

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

This discussion has been closed.