BREAKING! Confirmed. NO REFUNDS policy now in place for Star Citizen. Not sure when it will be across the board. We knew this was coming.
$10K+ backer. He's in Canada. CIG sends him a check he can't cash.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/760co4/refunded_by_cheque_that_cant_be_cashed/
SQUADRON 42 DELAYED TO 2018
As I reported on Twitter earlier today, several sources, as they have done twice before in 2015 and 2016, have once again informed me that SQ42 is now a 2018 game. In fact, the current internal schedule shows it stretching all the way to mid-2018, and possibly beyond. The past two times that I had reported this, some people didn’t believe it. And CIG kept denying it. This Sept 2016 denial was my favorite. Both 2015 and 2016 came and went. Right up to the blatant lies that CIG told during the events (GamesCom and CitizenCon) of Q4/2016. I wrote extensively about that in my Shattered Dreams blog from Oct 2016.
Sources also tell me that they’re frantically trying to either get a preview or trailer out before the end of the year. So yeah, probably a repeat of Q4/2016 all over again.
Oh, and they have definitely chopped up the SQ42 game. I reported on this back in 2016 as well, but they have apparently stuck to the goal of releasing the once full game, into bits and pieces in order to “keep things going and raising money”. It makes perfect sense if you ask me. They know that the minute they release any “final” version of any portion of this train-wreck project, that’s it’s all over. So why not maintain the bait and switch Status Quo by splitting a full game into parts, then sell them separately? If you recall, they did that back in 2016 when they split SQ42 from Star Citizen, in order to sell it separately. Except this time, they’re going to split SQ42 even further. Which, now that I think about it, explains why you can buy that game for $15 (instead of $45) if you buy it as a bundle ($45 + $15) with Star Citizen. My God man! We’re doing it all wrong.
"As I've pointed out before, back in January 2015, Roberts delivered a presentation in which he claimed that not only would the first episode of Squadron 42 be released by Fall 2015, but the full commercial release - meaning SQ42 and the persistent universe / MMO - would happen by the end of 2016. He made this claim at 1:32:06 in this video.
At the time of this presentation, the PU wasn't yet in the alpha stage. He seemed to think that his team could get through all of alpha, get through all of beta, and optimize enough for a decent MMO launch in 2 years, all while concurrently working on a single-player game. By saying this, he demonstrated that he either didn't know what he was talking about, or he was being dishonest. It was probably a combination of the two.
Now, almost 3 years after that presentation, backers still haven't seen a mission demo of SQ42, and the MMO is in alpha with, I'm guessing, another 1-2 years of alpha ahead of them. At this rate, I would be impressed if the first episode of SQ42 gets released by 2020, and the MMO gets released by 2023."
It appears adults are running things in /r/games, as nobody's getting shouted down for the dissent.
Wonder if they're in shock or mourning over in the SC reddit?
Aha, they are now upgrading to the "we have actually spent your money on developing the game, so there is no legal ground to ask for your money back" approach. Too bad EU laws don't go for that :D
I have no compassion for them... not anymore. We've been hinting at this, the tipping point, the mechanics of the Ponzi scheme for months now, here and "over there". Everyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall. Tough luck for those who are now left holding the bag.
I have no compassion for them... not anymore. We've been hinting at this, the tipping point, the mechanics of the Ponzi scheme for months now, here and "over there". Everyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall. Tough luck for those who are now left holding the bag.
BREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/930441319696257025QuoteBREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
Couldn't they still let people go on the quiet anyway, get them to sign NDAs so they don't run off to the media etc?
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/930441319696257025QuoteBREAKING NEWS! Well, it had to happen. Getting word of major worldwide job losses coming to the Star Citizen project. Apparently keeping it quiet until after the upcoming holiday sales. We'll see.
Surely it's more likely that they'll quietly try to reduce the numbers gradually - not replacing people who leave / retire etc.
If they've got to the point where they need to do lay-offs then they're completely f#*ked. Couldn't they still let people go on the quiet anyway, get them to sign NDAs so they don't run off to the media etc?
Nah, no way they can stop the signal. Besides, most of them hate management anyway, and they're already talking.
For some reason, there is no anniversary live stream (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/citizens/16267-This-Week-In-Star-Citizen) this year. I wonder if it's because they can't actually play 3.0 live, since it flat out broken. :laugh:
They do have an anniversary special sales (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/home-featured-content/16249-The-Anniversary-Special) event though. So there's that.
Nothing affects the obligatory end of year JPEG ship sale cash grab.
Latest Star Citizen email just went out to the super elite such as myself. You can read it here.
Latest Star Citizen email just went out to the super elite such as myself. You can read it here.
Where on Earth is the "Sol Sytem" ?? :rolleyes:
This lack of attention to grammatical fidelity sure is worrying for a management that frets about details in space.
Reply to your Tweet: You do realize that it's limited quantities not limited in a way that it's never going to be on sale again right?
Is that guy really that fucking retarded or what?
If you have to ask, you clearly have too much faith in broken-brained people.
2014...
https://twitter.com/RangerXML/status/520748402737688577
https://twitter.com/1stVerseProbs/status/502432405639421952
That pic with the guy holding the glossy brochure(!) reminds me of typical financial scams and ponzis reported on episodes of "American Greed".
Whoa!! The 890 Jump is back on sale. Man, they're throwing everything out the window. But don't call it desperation though. :shrug:
(https://i.imgur.com/KgF9KWA.png)
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16259-ORIGIN-Anniversary-Special-Sale
They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
And, if you can divulge, what are the conditions where can share?They must be so desperate for cash that they don't care about any negative headlines at this stage. I can't see this going well.
Yes, they are in fact. I am sitting on some stuff that I am under explicit instructions not to share. As I've stated before, it's bad - real bad. Just bookmark this post.
3D Models/Objects: Beacon, Claim licenses
Outposts:
Outpost crafting systems
Outpost modules:
habitation
armory
refinery
hydroponics
storage
medical
Automated Defense drones
Planetary Weather
Sandstorms
Electrical storms
winds
snow
other
Planetary Geophysics:
Earthquakes
Motion Detection Alerting System
Claim registration system
Space Criminal System
Destruction of Claim Posts
Piracy
Theft
UEE Protection system, UEE Patrols
Dedicated Mercenaries
Private Defense contracts
Land designation systems.
Available for Claim
Reserved
National parks
Wildlife Refuges
Nature PReserves
Industry:
Mining
Commercial Production
Retail outlets
Analysis:
Core samples
Seismographic surveys
Crowdfunding implicitly monetizes feature creep; by having a continuous funding model, they are continuously creeping.Star Citizen has nothing to do with crowd funding, at all. So their Guinness record is bullshit.
Crowdfunding implicitly monetizes feature creep; by having a continuous funding model, they are continuously creeping.Star Citizen has nothing to do with crowd funding, at all. So their Guinness record is bullshit.
Crowd funding means that a high number of people pool low amounts of money together to reach a certain funding goal. Once that goal is reached, that sum is then invested. This way a group of people could buy or lease a ocean-going ship for a research mission for example.
Early access video game / digital content pre-order scams have nothing to do with crowd funding.
There was only one thing anywhere near that term: the Star Citizen Kickstarter campaign. This one was intentionally fraudulent, as the goal sum ($500,000) was set way too low to actually implement the project description on Kickstarter within the promised time frame on Kickstarter. You cannot develop a AAA video game with $500,000. So the factual result of this Kickstarter: CIG didn't deliver and ran away with that Kickstarter money ($2 million).
Everything else including selling non-existing digital items on your website is not crowd funding. Publishing a ever-increasing fantasy number (instead of legitimate financials with costs, sales and revenues) is not crowd funding.
Let's just say it's idiot-funded at this point and call it day.More like funded by the whaling industry and yes.
One of the things I look forward to about the inevitable collapse of CIG (other than the knowledge that all those self righteous shills will be crying about their lost cash and the fact that Derek was right) will be hearing the inside story of how it all went wrong and what Chris was really like to work with.
One of the things I look forward to about the inevitable collapse of CIG (other than the knowledge that all those self righteous shills will be crying about their lost cash and the fact that Derek was right) will be hearing the inside story of how it all went wrong and what Chris was really like to work with.
Nobody is going to say Derek was right, they're going to whine that he caused it to fail and he's responsible for them all losing their money.
You have to realise that even worse than being wrong is being publicly embarrassed, most people rationalize their failures into someone else and that someone will surely be Derek. Chris Roberts will probably write another sorry letter quietly encouraging the hate and pointing fingers anywhere except at him.
2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
I think if you point a finger at someone you only find 8 pointing back at you. 9 at the most.
The last desperate cash grabI don't understand how they were able to raise so much this sale. Considering all their failures YTD, I expected this sale to be the lowest one of all.Quote2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
The last desperate cash grabI don't understand how they were able to raise so much this sale. Considering all their failures YTD, I expected this sale to be the lowest one of all.Quote2013 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 10 Days (11-18 through 11-27)
2014 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 11 Days (11-22 through 12-02)
2015 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-20 through 12-01)
2016 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 12 Days (11-19 through 11-30)
2017 Anniversary Sale Day Count: 18 Days (11-24 through 12-11)
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Sorry, can't. It's super highly confidential and will cause issues with sources.
Give us a hint there, be a sport.
Sorry, can't. It's super highly confidential and will cause issues with sources.
This is seriously my only gripe with your approach as I've seen you make similar type statements a few times in the past. Please DS, if you can't say it, even a small portion of what you know, just don't mention it period. Eluding that you "know stuff" and leaving it at that does nothing to support your position, or add to you credibility. If anything it can be used against you.
....and the move towards the emergency exit is well underway..
How long till the big news breaks?
Can you at least tell us how you expect it to be made public when the time comes? Are we looking out for a CIG community announcement / press release / media article / you tube vid / reddit post / blog ?
@derek
Ever thought about giving your predictions/informations to a neutral trustworthy (best case legaly bound) party, to verify that you predicted something/had the informations beforehand ?
Not really asking you to do that, as it would most likely cost something and a lot people might actually question the needed neutrality of such a party.
How long till the big news breaks?
Can you at least tell us how you expect it to be made public when the time comes? Are we looking out for a CIG community announcement / press release / media article / you tube vid / reddit post / blog ?
Yeah, that I can do. Two Weeks :laugh: :supaburn: :lol:
Squadron 42 will be the focus of our Holiday Livestream in December, where we will preview some gameplay and share our roadmap for its completion
Derek really needs to be cautious as false informations and even internal informations (and the identity of leak getting revealed) would most likely lead to unessecary damage.
Ever thought about giving your predictions/informations to a neutral trustworthy (best case legaly bound) party, to verify that you predicted something/had the informations beforehand ?
Not really asking you to do that, as it would most likely cost something and a lot people might actually question the needed neutrality of such a party.
I can't find the exact dates for the livestream though.
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
Is this part of your super secret news, or is there more to come in 2 weeks ?
@Derek
Guessed you might have thought about it, because at least some people in the public are saying you might make unspecified statements, just to retroactively fill them with some random bad happening.
So it's not really about scoops or anything, but more about disproving people who claim such.
Funnily enough it wouldn't really matter if you were doing a psychic trick (in making propable unspeficif predictions people might retroactively read as specific) as the propability part is what matters to me of your messages. And so far your predictions seem quite fitting, and the timeframe of when you said something was going to happen was more on point than Roberts predictions upon when SC would hit certain development stages.
Is this part of your super secret news, or is there more to come in 2 weeks ?
Super secret news will be ready when it's ready. I don't mind the wait, because the worst thing that could be released now is a tweet storm that's laggy and doesn't scroll smoothly without major framerate issues or disappearing tweets. I want Derek to have as much time as he needs to polish this update.
Squadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
I can't wait for the excuses:QuoteSquadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
Just putting this here so we can refer/track it later
"Squadron 42 will be the focus of our Holiday Livestream in December, where we will preview some gameplay and share our roadmap for its completion."
From the Oct 13, 2017 newsletter (http://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/meet-the-defender-of-the-banu-140549)
BREAKING!! Several sources have confirmed that 1) CIG is NOT planning to show SQ42 during this month's stream and 2) if they do change this plan, that it will NOT be a live play through, but yet another movie trailer.
I can't wait for the excuses:QuoteSquadron 42 won't be shown in this year's livestream, it's nearly ready, but there were a few last minute issues so it's better to delay showing everything until it's perfect. But since it's really very nearly ready we'll show it to you soon in a few months. Answer the Call 2018 folks. Maybe at the next holiday livestream. In 2019
Surely they have at least some Mocap and voice acting from the Stars he forked out for ...obviously not SQ42 but might just keep a few more people happy for a while.....
And when the collapse does come, the SC sub Reddit will be full of whales complaining that they never expected this to happen and crying about how much money they lost. And halfway down the comment section, amid the salt and anguish, will be the lone Joe Blobers Alt calmly and smugly telling them: They just don't understand game development.
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
It's because all of the basic, foundational mechanics are horribly broken.
I put it to you that they have no gameplay to show.
It's because all of the basic, foundational mechanics are horribly broken.
After the inevitable collapse, this is one area where a lot of analysis will take place (also the management style / financials / marketing strategy / lack of experience etc). Derek will know all about this, and there are plenty of good GDC talks about this on Youtube. A game needs to nail down their core gameplay loops early on and make it really fun and appealing. For FPS shooters this would be running / jumping / aiming / shooting, for a space game it would be flying, manoeuvring, aiming, shooting etc. Beyond that there are further loops for missions / progression etc. The core loop, the thing the player will be doing repetitively has to feel good and fun. The problem is that SC never really looked at the game this way. What is the core gameplay for the game? is it a first person shooter, if so where is this aspect in 3.0? is it a space shooter? but the ship flight mechanics look dreadful and shooting an enemy ship the size of a few pixels worked in the 90s but does it still work now? Besides, CR has at various stages indicated that it could be: a space sim / FPS / survival game / trading game / MMO / car racer etc. Basically all the genres at once. At no stage do they seem to have sat down and say - let's try and concentrate on just one gameplay loop and make it really fun.
More proof that this guy has no vision, he just steals what he likes from other franchises yet leaves common sense at the door. Couldn't you just have cargo loaded, have the ship fuelled and delivered to a gate of your choosing? Makes sense to me. Just another example of how the Robbers dictatorship fails the backers.
Fun isn't a good metric if you can't define your target audience and what game you actually want to make - or if you goal might actually being doing a wholesome space life simulation.
So while your most likely right for real game projects - Roberts doesn't seems to be bothered by wanting to develop something as trivial as a game. I mean he comes across as the guy who would have tried to implement MS Flight simulator avionic systems into Battlefield 1942.
Ha, somebody agreed :D
This should be higher up :D
Did Clive Johnson just said "We have the wrong engine for SC" ? Am I right?No. He basically just said "we're trying to do things nobody has ever done before". Which more or less amounts to the same thing
Did Clive Johnson just said "We have the wrong engine for SC" ? Am I right?
Regarding Clive Johnson's post about the netcode, I thought I'd throw my opinion out there. I know very little about networking so pay more attention to Derek's excellent blog on this than me.
That said, Clive makes some very contradictory statements. Firstly saying the Netcode doesn't impact FPS and performace, but then saying that fresh servers and offline games have better performance because they have fewer players.
I think it all depends on how you define Netcode, which as Derek says, is a very non specific term. Clive may be referring solely to the mechanism by which data gets serialized and transmitted between the client and the server, perhaps also relating to how that data gets dealt with in the core code at either end. What this doesn't address, of course, is HOW much data is being transmitted, which as we know is an excessive amount and base Cryengine is extremely poorly optimized in this regard. Clive's sole responsibility may be the code which deals with the data flow, and, as he points out, this isn't the problem. When he goes on to talk about fundamentally changing systems in the engine in his last paragraph, he may well be referring to the entire multiplayer system in Cryengine and how every single asset in the game handles multiplayer, including physics updates etc. Which kind of suggests that they haven't even been looking at the multiplayer code in Cryengine (it may be outside his remit anyway).
Anyway, this was my take on the post. I'd love to hear back from any network programmers out there !
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
See? He's doing everything right like you proposed in your Battleship example – he's just sending the raindrop's position.
Someone who didn't understand game development would send the size, 3d volume geometry (influenced by air resistance), and dust particle contamination (which determines reflective and translucent properties) of that particular raindrop over the network as well. Chris doesn't do that; he just sends the position of each drop. How efficient is that!
That's because Chris and his team understand Serialized Raindrops, Raindrop Culling and Water 2.0 to make this miracle of a game work with rainfall fidelity never seen in a game before.
there's no limit to what else he can serialize.
Each raindrop must be individually rendered, not just a "rain" event, and each raindrop's position sent over the network in real time.
See? He's doing everything right like you proposed in your Battleship example – he's just sending the raindrop's position.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT NEWS STAY TUNED
In particular, by descending into Clive's post in detail (task two), the major point got a little muffled: the fact that, in fact, Clive's post is truthful. This isn't where the problem lies, nor are they going to get earth-shattering improvements here. Netcode works as planned and isn't holding anything up at the moment (sure, you can call it crappy and lousy and all you want, and you may be right, but even if it were the best in the world, it wouldn't matter).
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT NEWS STAY TUNED
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
In particular, by descending into Clive's post in detail (task two), the major point got a little muffled: the fact that, in fact, Clive's post is truthful. This isn't where the problem lies, nor are they going to get earth-shattering improvements here. Netcode works as planned and isn't holding anything up at the moment (sure, you can call it crappy and lousy and all you want, and you may be right, but even if it were the best in the world, it wouldn't matter).
Well....as I understand Clive Johnsons point, he is saying that the netcode isn't at fault, but the reason the game has performance issues is because the client is being overloaded with data from 39 other players.
One question that would pop into my head at this point is why each client is dealing with the data from 39 other players.
This, I think, is why so many people were blaming the netcode. It is easy to point to an aspect such as culling and say performance is suffering because the client is getting too much needless data...that there is no prioritisation going on
And...to a degree...this would be correct. But I doubt the answers to the performance issues are that simple. Data culling would remove needless data from the system but it could still cause problems when you get 40 players in the same area.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/940988268572807168
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
CryTek has followed through on its threat to sue RSI/CIG for a litany of things, and have hired one of the best law firms in the US (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/skadden-merger-takeover-business-cx_df_0123skadden.html#723cde4b7f09). The suit is led by this guy (https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/minnick-kevin-j).
The lawsuit is currently up on PACER (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al), but doesn't show as being served yet. They are claiming, among other things, IP infringement, breach of contract, and royalties (on the $170m raised) due to them.
I am currently working through an article about it which will provide more details from the filing. It's as serious as can be, as they are alleging they switched engines to avoid paying them.
Developing story. Stay tuned.
Being sued by Crytek eh? I thought they bought complete access to the engine source and could do whatever they wanted to with it?
The lawsuit is online
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
And incidentally, about Clive's post, I guess my misunderstand is more that I disagree with your assessment, Derek. In the quote, Clive blames Animations, FLCS (or whatever pseudo-avionics they use), Models and something like "Entity Updates" for the problems. The most charitable way to interpret that is him saying it's not bad netcode, it's the fact that nothing in the game was ever budgeted for multiplayer.
So if you take him at his word, even if he is wrong, things are worse: it isn't something as simple as bad net transport. It's something as simple as those in power over this thing did not deem multiplayer important enough to give it a role in design decisions, and as a result, the game and engine explode in multiplayer situations, and it's not something that cleaning up the crappy netcode will fix.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/940988268572807168
Star Citizen backers now have a choice to make. 1) Dig deep & continue to fund a failed venture 2) ask questions about the money or 3) pull out and get a refund.
What choice will you make?
It's here. It's bad. And it's only going to get worse.
Stay tuned.
CryTek has followed through on its threat to sue RSI/CIG for a litany of things, and have hired one of the best law firms in the US (https://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/skadden-merger-takeover-business-cx_df_0123skadden.html#723cde4b7f09). The suit is led by this guy (https://www.skadden.com/professionals/m/minnick-kevin-j).
The lawsuit is currently up on PACER (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al), but doesn't show as being served yet. They are claiming, among other things, IP infringement, breach of contract, and royalties (on the $170m raised) due to them.
I am currently working through an article about it which will provide more details from the filing. It's as serious as can be, as they are alleging they switched engines to avoid paying them.
Developing story. Stay tuned.
The lawsuit is online
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
That CIG then spent so much time, effort and money working on game assets and ships instead of developing the engine simply made the problems worse
And it all started nearly two years ago. Early 2016 is when Crytek told CIG to knock it the fuck off. CIG gave them the middle finger instead and now here we are.
And it all started nearly two years ago. Early 2016 is when Crytek told CIG to knock it the fuck off. CIG gave them the middle finger instead and now here we are.
If that is the case then you would expect Ortwin to have somewhat comprehensible reasons for doing so.
In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
And what's "reasonable"? CIG doesn't even have $10 in Monopoly money.In other words they must have some defence they think is worthy OR.......they know they are screwed and carried on as long as the could to make as much $$$ as they could.
If they knew this was coming it also makes a mockery of any attempts to sell SC on to someone else (not that the engineering debt and presales didn't do that already)
The only possible defence that seems likely is that somehow a termination clause was triggered, allowing CIG to end the contract and move to LumberYard - apparently without telling CryTek. One could also argue that using LumberYard means the game is still using CryEngine, depending on whether or not the law sees LumberYard as a separate entity or not, and so has not switched engines.
To be honest, I don't see either or those as being likely.
The best that it seems CIG can hope for is for the damages to be kept to a "reasonable" amount.
They are fucked. This is the beginning of the avalanche of creditors wanting to get something for their troubles.
Fact: Star Citizen is not using CryEngine anymore.My question is:
This is from the last bugsmashers to date:
(https://i.imgur.com/G5ccgDG.png)
Link to video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru3zwjVMP3A&feature=youtu.be&t=51s)
In July 2015, I wrote about why them developing two titles with CryEngine was a legal minefield. Here we are.
http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/ (http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-discourse/)
What I said...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRA6fJEW0AAvRVK.jpg)
You COULD say "I called it", right? Right.
I know that Crytek wouldn't want to have taken legal action lightly but you wonder why they didn't act sooner as there was always a danger that the CIG $ would run out.
After reading through that lawsuit document I don't see what CIG can do, the charges look pretty open and shut to me. You have to wonder what kind of defense strategy they could muster.I know that Crytek wouldn't want to have taken legal action lightly but you wonder why they didn't act sooner as there was always a danger that the CIG $ would run out.
It's understandable. Unless a company is something like a patent troll, using a lawsuit to fix an issue is generally a last resort.
When I used to own a condo there were some issues with the electrical and metering between the residential and commercial parts of the building. The condo association knew of these issues for a long time and kept pushing on the contractor and insurer responsible for this. It wasn't until the last second that they resorted to legal means.
Lawsuits sucks for everyone.
After reading through that lawsuit document I don't see what CIG can do, the charges look pretty open and shut to me.
Well, the post Derek quoted states that they supposedly branched off CryEngine at the exact same time as Amazon. Amazon on the other hand owns whatever CryEngine core they use. So my guess would be that they will claim that everything they have now is Lumberyard. Looks like they really tried to pull the rug out under Crytek here - probably in light of their financial troubles they wanted to get away from them, got wind of the Amazon deal and prepared the switch.
Not sure how locked in they are by their agreement with Crytek. Is it really so tight that say if they had found (as they did, in a way) that their game can not be built with CryEngine that they still would have to stick with it?
This makes the whole Lumberyard-Switch and the "we did it in 2 days"-thing appear in a different light as well, does it not? The statement was ridiculed at the time but maybe it was a lie that was somehow necessary to pull this U-turn on Crytek (for example because the real timeline would get them in legal-trouble)?
Hold my beer, I got this...
Hold my beer, I got this...
Just need to point out one thing since I think this detail isn't leading anywhere. There's a simple answer to that question "...why is Amazon copyright missing from that video?"
The file is within Lumberyard, and you can check it here: https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h (https://github.com/aws/lumberyard/blob/master/dev/Code/CryEngine/CryCommon/INetwork.h)
In the video the code is only visible starting from line 11: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/941031827258691585)
EDIT: Typo.
As I have both engines, I have files from both CryEngine and Lumberyard, and I am not understanding your point. Did I miss something?
what time do you expect, they will need to come to a result?
and any idea, what costs could come with a conviction?
15. On November 20, 2012, Crytek and Defendants entered into a Game License Agreement ("GLA") with Crytek. The GLA was extensively negotiated, and negotiations on behalf of the Defendants were led by one of the Defendants' co-founders, Freyermuth. In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek. The negotiations on behalf of Crytek were led by Carl Jones, then an employee of Crytek. Jones later left Crytek and became an employee of Defendants.
In prior years, Freyermuth also represented Crytek in negotiations of similar license agreements with third parties. Notwithstanding that he had confidential information about Crytek's licensing practices that would unfairly advantage Defendants, Freyermuth never recused himself from those negotiations and never resolved that conflict of interest with Crytek.
I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.
Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG. Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.
Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek. But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.
So I don't get why this claim is material at all.
I have to say, contrary to your opinion, that I thought this claim (or fact I forget which) was by far the weakest of the whole document.
Crytek obviously knew that Freyermuth had previously represented it in these negotiations, so they should have insisted he recuse himself back when they were negotiating with CIG. Since they didn't, I would suppose it is too late to complain about it now.
Unless the claim is that he wasn't actually in the room, just talking to CIG's real representatives over the phone, and that his participation was hidden from Crytek. But they don't say that, they say that the negotiations were led by Freyermuth.
So I don't get why this claim is material at all.
Read this. I cover it there. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html
The monthly burn rate at CIG has been estimated at $3 - 4 million. If CIG are still paying their staff then they presumably have enough money to satisfy this claim. They might not be able to pay their staff afterwards though.
The monthly burn rate at CIG has been estimated at $3 - 4 million. If CIG are still paying their staff then they presumably have enough money to satisfy this claim. They might not be able to pay their staff afterwards though.
There is one thing bugging me ever since this lawsuit started. I'm assuming that they did some research at Skadden. It should be pretty obvious that there is no money left at CIG, at least not much. Even if Chris and his merry gang did skim off, will there be enough to satisfy both CryTek and Skadden? I'm guessing there won't be since the largest part of the money most likely actually has been spent on staff etc. How come Skadden still took on the job?That's why the discovery phase is going to be so much FUN! :allears:
Where do you people get the 13.5k per person estimate from?
My personal guess for the seeked compensation would be more based upon a percentage of the sales, than what they got from Amazon for their engine. Which sounds about right, as i don't think the licensing fees are that high for a normale license, when compared towards a percentage of that 170m, or even the 150m or so they'd reached when they switched engines.
In the end it's still just speculating without any idea what their contract really said.
There is one thing bugging me ever since this lawsuit started. I'm assuming that they did some research at Skadden. It should be pretty obvious that there is no money left at CIG, at least not much. Even if Chris and his merry gang did skim off, will there be enough to satisfy both CryTek and Skadden? I'm guessing there won't be since the largest part of the money most likely actually has been spent on staff etc. How come Skadden still took on the job?
Hey guys, New comer here... also a backer for 'that game'. :cripes:
Just figured I'd join and see what's up, because that new version 3.0 of 'that game' doesn't even run on my PC. So if you're in the same boat, join the party here:
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/368/897/467/demand-cloud-imperium-games-to-release-their-financial-information/
I want to know what the hell they're doing with my money. Don't you?
I know what they're doing with your money
They're spending it.
Game development is...can be...very expensive
If you are concerned that they are squandering your money, that they are wasting your money....well, they are.
They have space doors to pay for...the debacle over third parties and communication issues would have cost millions...I believe Chris Roberts did get his (IIRC) $3 million to license Star Citizen to CIG (if I understand the reports correctly) so at least that money was well spent. And of course, there are the upcoming lawyers fees....
So - the answer - IMO anyway - is that the money is being squandered and misspent. I just can't be sure how much.
Or are you worried about if they have any money left? Well...the UK based F42 looks to have posts CIG about $70 million over three years. Double that to account for the other three offices, and add in a bit extra to account for the previous three years. They've got between (less than) $0 and $40 million in reserve depending on the estimates.
Seriously - really - I don't think CIG have any interest in releasing their financial information. Or at least, any more than they have to. And I don't believe they'll pay attention to any petition or poll.
If you are concerned about finances, the only thing I can really suggest is that you ask for a refund on the grounds that they haven't provided the product you paid for. That might work.
Organise a way for Backers to ask CIG for a refund (as individuals) with the understanding that you will all buy back in en mass once accounts are published.I don't think anybody sane is ever going to buy back into that trainwreck.
does anybody really thinks, that we will ever see a real financial report?
they have that much known sub companies, and nobody knows, how many
others are out there. with that amount of many they have and they do,
they easily could hire some well known financial companies, to get the reports
and taxes optimized.
the only way to get this done would be, to find and freeze every relating account
and put a specialized team of people on this.
but normaly, these people won't work for the gov, because the financial companies
pay a multiple salary. knowledge is money.
i think this would be a don quixote fight.
does anybody really thinks, that we will ever see a real financial report?Only in the discovery phase in the aftermath of CryTek's lawsuit.
they have that much known sub companies, and nobody knows, how many
others are out there. with that amount of many they have and they do,
they easily could hire some well known financial companies, to get the reports
and taxes optimized.
the only way to get this done would be, to find and freeze every relating account
and put a specialized team of people on this.
but normaly, these people won't work for the gov, because the financial companies
pay a multiple salary. knowledge is money.
i think this would be a don quixote fight.
Skadden amended their lawsuit complaint against CIG. I have written a thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html) covering it.
Skadden amended their lawsuit complaint against CIG. I have written a thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html) covering it.
Good write up, I'm very interested to see the your take on the response from CIG when it happens.
66. Defendants continue to intentionally reproduce, display, and distribute new versions of Squadron 42 that embed the copyrighted CryEngine computer program without authorization.
Haha, I know it's just legalese but it reads like Skadden has gotten their hands on a distribution of Squadron 42.
I gotta get me a copy of that.
So the implication of intentionally being included is that Scadden is likely to have strong evidence of that being so (or else it wouldn't be worth the risk to their/the cases credibility amend the complaint at this stage in that manner)
I can't wait to read their response. It's going to be amazing.
Pretty much. They're now implying that RSI/CIG were well aware that they were breaching the agreement, but did it anyway. Showing intent is key to damages.
Why would "intent" not have been included in the original filing from such a capable firm ?
They say the best tricks are the old tricks. they pulled it off once why not try it again? Skim the cash just before they bottom out and then repayment hits killing off CIG and/or removing S42 from their ownership and the need to continue development.
Read my latest thread from this morning and you will understand. It's related to Ortwin
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html
Also, why wouldn't Chris Roberts be very well up on the specific details of the GLA and thus aware he was breaking it ?
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
I still dont understand what Skadden have found out since filing that they didnt already know (about Ortwin)
I appreciate they may have just done some more work on what info they had and decided to amend it.
Also, why wouldn't Chris Roberts be very well up on the specific details of the GLA and thus aware he was breaking it ?
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
So sad as it makes one wonder if they will turn SC into a nickle and dime you machine beyond the tanks, merchandising etc. Chris should be going out of his way serve the community that gave him so much money. Asking for money just to meet him with the current state of the game is in poor taste.
Here we thought them taking backer money to manufacture cheap Chinese goods, then selling them back to backers at a mark up profite was bad.
Are we due JPEG sales any time soon? I've got a feeling CIG need the cash right now.
"They're going to have to do something spectacular, selling tanks seems a bit dull. "
Yeah, but at this stage I'm surprised that they're not charging more.
Like I said, clearly Battle mechs are the way forward.
It isnt some obscure clause we are talking about here, or is it ?
The Crytek lawsuit was very specific and I've done my best to lay it all out in layman terms. I can't do much more than that.
SullyQuindarius 17 points 9 hours ago
Alright, let's see what Derek Smart says about this new development after all his gloating...
I can't wait to see his reaction when the whole thing gets dropped haha.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g., a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game).;Third, in practice, CIG/RSI treated SQ42 + SC as a single game until a certain point, when they decided to market them (and sell them) separately.
I can't wait to see Skadden's response to CIG - does anyone know when we might expect to see this?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how much of the core libraries (ie. CryEngine) remain the same when they switched to Lumberyard? I'd wager, all of it.
CIG are screwed.
Having given this some more thought (and less tired and more sober). Never mind the specifics of the GLA and meaning of exclusivity to use CryEngine - even if they were free to switch to another engine, the question will be asked: have they? I can see the central allegation being that they haven't switched engine at all, they just took all their CryEngine work and added a few Amazon libraries and claimed to have switched Engine. They were still using the same CryEngine core as before, therefore the GLA should still apply. Thus they intentionally broke it.
I can't wait to see Skadden's response to CIG - does anyone know when we might expect to see this?
Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how much of the core libraries (ie. CryEngine) remain the same when they switched to Lumberyard? I'd wager, all of it.
CIG got a deeply discounted license to use Crytek and agreed to prominently display Crytek's logo in all SC splash screens and advertising. They were tied to Crytek and to bolster that point CIG was forbidden to work on any game using a competing engine for a period of 2 years. Sounds like a serious exclusive deal tying CIG to Crytek.
Crytek CLAIMS they got some sort of discount. Does 1.85 Mio Euros look like a big-time discount? Not sure. As Derek said: Usually there are royalties included in these contracts. Crytek probably did not believe in a big success and opted for upfront payment.
The other point you refer to I think you misread. IIRC they are forbidden to create an ENGINE for 2 yrs. So Crytek is ensuring that they are do not study their code and then turn around and develop a competing engine.
Here's a livestream from the same lawyer who examined the original complaint by Crytek and he concludes that Cryteks claim may actually get dismissed:
He said that if he were the judge, he would rule in favor of CIG. This after not even reading the important key points of the GLA which Crytek was alleging have been breached.
Once the judge rules on the MtD on Feb 9th, and which we fully expect that she will rule against Crytek, we'll see their reaction.I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.
To be fair, he probably read the GLA and other stuff before making the video. And while I think he may be overstating the strength of CIGs case, there is still that is open to judicial interpretation.
Having said that, he did seem surprised at the damage indemnification clause.
Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling. Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.
I assume you meant rule against CiG on the MtD matter.
About how long should we expect this case to go on? Epic v Silicon Knights went on for nearly 5 years from initial filing to final ruling. Zenimax v OR took over 2 and a half years to resolve.
When it comes down to it ......there isn't much analysis in his video. He doesn't strike me as though he has read it beforehand ( eg the way he comments on Autodesk being in it)
If it is as clear cut as he seems to suggest .. why are Skadden pursuing it ?
How likely is it that a judge would dismiss such a case at this stage ? For my money judges don't like to dismiss things unless there is absolutely solid ground to do so.
How many judges are sufficiently up on game contract law to confidently dismiss a case like this at near enough first pass ?
/*Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germany
* All or portions of this file Copyright (c) Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates or
* its licensors.
*
* For complete copyright and license terms please see the LICENSE at the root of this
* distribution (the "License"). All use of this software is governed by the License,
* or, if provided, by the license below or the license accompanying this file. Do not
* remove or modify any license notices. This file is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
*
*/
// Original file Copyright Crytek GMBH or its affiliates, used under license.
On SA there is the Code Copyright thing again.Basically in Germany you can not sell a copyright you can only sell the right to distribute, sell and stuff but the copyright holder will never change (unlike in america) and Cryengine has been created in germanyWhile this is true, it doesn't really affect the case.
He mentioned that he would talk about a couple of issues "later" as they were more relevant then. That indicates he did some study of the entire document before making the video.
A: They made a mistake.
B: He made a mistake.
C: Skadden were paid to do it and took the money.
CryTek suing the wrong company could be suitable grounds for dismissal, but would seem to be a delaying tactic. Given that they are all interlinked bodies working on different aspects of the same project with the same owners/mangers/people involved, the judge could also decide that Skadden are right.
Don't think that is relevant at this stage. Just whether CIGs analysis makes sense.
Will Crytek get a chance to reply to the MtD before a judge ruling?
Sure but again ..did Skadden really make such a Rookie error ?
Maybe it is a trial-run? Sue the wrong company and force them to argue a motion to dismiss and show their hand a bit. Then sue the correct one afterwards? I'm sure there's a lot of little tricks to that kind of stuff. And they MUST have reason to go after a different company than stated in the contract.Maybe because RSI sits on the money? There must be a reason, why CIG got all the Kickstarter funds, but RSI is the company who pays the refunds.
Posted by: StanTheMan
« on: Today at 08:02:52 AM »
All these YouTube experts
Yep I have trouble that they never see any red flags, I suspect some of it has to due with income.
oredgamer said, that this is just his opinion, and he doesn't
know anything about law or copyright and contracts... so far so good.
what happens, if the courts follows cig answer, but as i noticed, they missed some points. will it be
stopped then, or just reduced?
All these YouTube experts.
Full of themselves and full of shite.
As I have been telling people, this is all noise. Like us, NONE of them are lawyers. So now we are just waiting to read the judge's ruling on the MtG on Feb 9 as that's going to be the determining factor as to which of Crytek's claims have merit.
The CIG response was basically a PR move. IMO it has no merits, and their case isn't stronger than Crytek's otherwise they won't be putting up a bullshit re-definition of exclusively, while not even addressing the other causes of action in the complaint.
Well no ! Nothing good about it - we have to take the whole of what he is doing and not allow him and his ilk off the hook like that.
If he has no knowledge of the subject matter, why does he feel the need to express an opinion on YouTube ?
As I said, no integrity, no brains (and no content !)
Read this Derek's comment on this submission.
My opinion on this, after doing some research on various stuff, is that things are looking better for CIG on some stuff, and looking better for Crytek on others. I will not be surprised if all Crytek gets is the stuff related to Bugsmashers and CIG not giving optimizations/bug fixes.
Such as?
Why would Crytek give exclusive rights to use Cryengine to CIG? It makes NO sense. It flies in the face of the supposed agreement to prominently display the Crytek logo. Why bother advertizing for Crytek if Crytek cannot licence its product any longer to any other party. They would be out of business.
Aside from the fact that apparently Crytek did licence it's engine to Amazon to create Lumberyard. If Crytek could licence to Amazon then it's "exclusive" agreement did not hogtie Crytek but rather ties CIG into using Cryengine exclusively, and ties CIG to the agreement not to build any games with any competing engine for 2 years after they conclude using Cryengine.
CIG's argument makes no sense. If Ortwin sold the contract that he claims exists to Crytek then he really did fuck them hard.
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.
Would be nice if you actually gave an actual put some real effort into rebuttal instead of posting something as trollish as that.Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.
Because what you wrote is so beyond idiotic, there is nothing of value worth replying to.
Businesses DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. EVER.
Ever since Serendipity left / got banned this forum has been a bit devoid of argument and name calling.
Don't mind me sitting here with my popcorn.
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
From my research found it is a type of stipulation that basically protects CIG. It means that only CIG can make the "Game", and that Crytek cannot give anybody else any rights to make the "Game". Them using Cryengine to make the "game" does not give Crytek the right to allow other people to make the "game".
This is one of the places I found information, though I kept on looking for more and found them, but this one spells it out the most clearly.
https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/commerical_exclusive_nonexclusive.html
So in this case it is talking about the licensee has the exclusive right to use the cryengine for the "game", which means that Crytek cannot give that right to anybody else to make the "game"
Since it is in the grant section, and it calls it a "right", there is no obligation, there is no restriction, and CIG can exercise that right or not it is their choice and it is not an obligation.
Still doesn't make any sense. Why put something like that in contract when Crytek is in no position to give anyone else right to use their engine to make Star Citizen.
Why would it impossible to add restrictive elements to grants? Crytek granted CIG the right to use their engine for the game if they use that and only that engine.
But dunno how that will interpreted. Your suggestion of interpretation doesn't make any sense. Why put something in contract you don't possess any control to do in first place? Why would it be there?
But in this case, it isn't describing an exclusive right...but a license to exclusive embed CryEngine into a game.
CryTek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.
CryTek can't give this license to anyone else because they don't own the IP. Nor is the interpretation that this simply means only CIG can develop the Game with CryEngine because that same right is addressed in 2.6.
Section 10.7 also seems to deal with the "protect CIG" interpretation you suggest.....and also seems to negate, to a degree, the no damage clause.
Barring a legalistic definition, the clause in question seems readily understandable.
So long as CryTek want to use CryEngine, then no other engine can be used.
The other side of the question is...does it have to use CryEngine?
The GLA in turn reads as if ONLY CryEngine can be embedded....a harsh condition, perhaps but one that CIG agreed to.
However, besides legalistic interpretations of the clause, the other aspect is "intent". We don't know what supporting evidence either side will bring to the case.
The simple fact is this is a GLA that appears to have no termination date, no major support from CryTek or obligation upon it, requires CIG to display...prominently...CryTeks logos and which requires CIG to share optimizations and bug fixes while requiring it to protect CryTeks IP.
CIG got a cheap engine out of this deal...and it was smart to sign on...but this is not really a document that suggests an agreement between equals. CryTek were doing CIG a favour and it shows.
The only weird aspect is the damage indemnification clause. It seems weird that CryTek would agree to waive damages except for an intentional breach. ...especially since other sections seem to indicate monetary damages are a possibility.
I wonder if Section 10.7 might be applicable as a way to sidestep that damage waiver?
As an aside...it looks like 7.1 does confirm the GLA is subject to an NDA. CIG might have breached that by effectively putting the GLA onto the public domain.
You miss quoted what it says:
to exclusively embed Cryengine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub licensable pursuant to sec 2.66
It states it as a "right", in the grant section. They are not obligated to exercise a right granted to them.
And the "Game" has been defined as
"for the game currently entitles "Space Citizen: and it's related space fight game "Squadron 42", together hereafter the "Game"
10.7 is interesting because it kind of falls in line about what I am saying that 2.1.2 is to protect CIG from Crytek trying to license the "Game" to other people, cause in 10.7 there is a clause in saying "nor shall Crytek be entitled to enjoing the publishing or other exploitation of the Game," so apparently there is a need to to show if Crytek has the right to license the "Game" to other people. At least that is what it looks like to me.
Up until today I would have completely agreed with you on them breaking the NDA, provided that #1 below was not considered as breaking the NDA on Crytek's part. I saw this earlier on the Star Citizen's refund reddit and the guy makes a good point, which is #2 on the list, and I'll quote him.
But #1 may not even matter because of this
Federal law allows to break NDA when it comes to tort suit, which this suit is under tort.
Which could also be read as simply requiring any third party sub contractor also needs to only use CryEngine.
Further, some "rights" can be de facto obligations because terms and other clauses tender it non feasible to do otherwise. Obligations can also be implied and can arise from legal rights.
I could still make a case for saying this is an obligation die to its wording, but the reality is that there may very well be a legal/technical definition of "exclusively"....not to mention emails and other supporting evidence for either side...which means there is a case you be decided.
That you and I have different interpretations of this clause shows the truth of what I've been saying. That this will need to be decided by a judge.
However...even if this is decided to be a right in the manner you suggest, CIGs problem is that they appear to have merged in LY code rather than remove CE coding, replace it with LY code and recompile. I can't day if that is the case or not but some people state they have decompiled 3.0 and CE code is still present.
If so, that breaks all sorts of clauses...in LY as well IIRC.
Two games...marketed, promoted and sold as a single entity and not as two separate standalone games. Ref...Exhibit 2 of the GLA.
All that is doing is setting limits..namely that CryTek cannot expect to be part of the games lifecycle simply because it provided the engine and that whatever is awarded, it doesn't get the game. Nothing more. There is a clear reason for such a clause and it doesn't repeat previous clauses.
In short...CryTek can't get control of the game as part of awarded damages.
There is a difference between selective quoting to justify the levied charges and facilitate the legal process and needlessly putting the entire commercially sensitive document into the public domain.
A factor which would justify CryTeks selective quoting and not CIGs wholesale publication.
and then these 2 lawyers confirmed what I already came to a conclusion for through my own research.
Well, guess what, you are all wrong.Read the article I put in the media thread. That is the third law professional that puts things on CIGs side.
The problem with the exclusive is where it exactly was written.
It's neither 'exclusive license to' nor is it 'exclusivly in StarCitizen', but 'exclusively [use] CryEngine in'. And i guess this will lead to an argument in court if CIG and CryTek won't settle beforehand. So far i still would follow the general idea of exclusive licenses - but we might see what a judge will make of that.
But then again, i see a lot of potential problems.
2.4. - CIG isn't allowed to promote a different Engine - well how'd you read that in connection with their LY switch and what they told people about CryEngine?
2.2.2. + 2.5. + 2.6. - Where's the agreed statement for RSI or those dozen other other english companies that seemingly - judging by Foundry 42 inclusion in the respective third parties list - don't count as affiliates?
1.2. + 1.5. + 1.6. + 8.1. - the game under that definition seems to be already released, and not only logic but also the contract seem to indicate that no termination should occur during the commercial life of said product. So changing the engine in that period ... i don't know.
So we have in the GLA that SQ42 and SC are shown as 2 games.
2.4. - CIG isn't allowed to promote a different Engine - well how'd you read that in connection with their LY switch and what they told people about CryEngine?
2.2.2. + 2.5. + 2.6. - Where's the agreed statement for RSI or those dozen other other english companies that seemingly - judging by Foundry 42 inclusion in the respective third parties list - don't count as affiliates?
1.2. + 1.5. + 1.6. + 8.1. - the game under that definition seems to be already released, and not only logic but also the contract seem to indicate that no termination should occur during the commercial life of said product. So changing the engine in that period ... i don't know.
It is very simple. Crytek gave CIG the rights to use their engine for developing the game Star Citizen. They did that for a fee that was way, way lower than what the fee normally would have been. I don't know why Crytek did that, but Crytek didn't do that because they liked Ortwin and Chris. They gave the low fee in exchange for a couple of things. The prominent promoting of Crytek by CIG was one of those. Another one was the fact that CIG had to use Cryengine and only Cryengine to build the game. And that's the "exclusive" part of the contract. All other "explanations" or "interpretations" and what not are just stupid. They are from people who simply are not willing to see that CIG fucked up their contract with Crytek on so many levels that it is painfully embarrassing that they even tried to defend themselves.
That are collectively part of one package, that are sold and marketed and promoted as one game.
That was then.
Today S42 is being marketed and sold as a separate standalone game that doesn't require Star Citizen to run.
How do you know it doesn't require Star Citizen client to run? Currently 2 modules that come with the SQ42 package requires SC client.
..nd I'm fairly certain that CIG wanted to switch engines to avoid making further payments to Crytek (although that assumption may be proven wrong, they may have wanted access to Amazon's web services?).
Chris took a gamble that Crytek wouldn't survive as a company so after they collapsed, he'd have their engine for himself without any further payments or issues whatsoever. Then Crytek survived. And then Chris realised he couldn't build the game he pitched, if he could build the game at all. And keeping it running would cost a fortune. But hey, look, Amazon has taken a license from Crtyek. And they're building on CryEngine too. So moving from our Cryengine to Amazon's Cryengine should be way easier than moving towards another completely different engine. And Amazon doesn't charge for the hosting too. So, that'll solve my problems for now and since we're sticking with Crytek in some way, they probably won't mind. And if they do, well, we're fucked anyway, so I'll burn that bridge the way I always burn all my bridges.
Because it is being marketed and promoted and sold as a game that does not require Star Citizen.That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.
Well I am done with him unless he provides a better argument.
I have no love for the game, rather I find the whole situation fascinating. I only pledged to get the full experience out of this whole situation. If a game actually manages to come out of this, then it will be pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting it at all, I lean more to that everything will be shut down before they get anything completed at worst and at the best they'll release something mediocre compared to what it was supposed to be, and give the worst scenario the highest probability. But that doesn't mean that I will automatically be against CIG on everything that comes to them, I'll put research into it, find relevant opinions, learn something new, to come to the conclusions that I do.
I do give my feedback on game development, just in case that my "best" scenario does actually happen, then at least I can feel I put in some feedback that they may or may not have listed to. Though they have not listed to suggestion I made so far, lol.
Chris took a gamble that Crytek wouldn't survive as a company so after they collapsed, he'd have their engine for himself without any further payments or issues whatsoever. Then Crytek survived. And then Chris realised he couldn't build the game he pitched, if he could build the game at all. And keeping it running would cost a fortune. But hey, look, Amazon has taken a license from Crtyek. And they're building on CryEngine too. So moving from our Cryengine to Amazon's Cryengine should be way easier than moving towards another completely different engine. And Amazon doesn't charge for the hosting too. So, that'll solve my problems for now and since we're sticking with Crytek in some way, they probably won't mind. And if they do, well, we're fucked anyway, so I'll burn that bridge the way I always burn all my bridges.
How much research have you sonme into what being a competent Programme Manager involves and then holding Croberts to, I dont know .. at least 25% of that standard ?
Thats before we get into any other analysis of his character and behaviours on this.
That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.
You will be able to play it without buying the game game known as Star Citizen. By deginition, it will have to work without it.
Can you explain to me how to run the 2 modules that come with SQ42 without using the Star Citizen client?[/quoye]
They aren't S42QuoteThe stipulation is that it uses the SC client, there is no reason to believe that it will not use the SC client.
Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.
Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.
Again, showing that it fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2.
according to a menu or list that prices items separately
Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC. It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client. SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.How is it ”add-on” if you can buy only the ”add-on”?
But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts, and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court.. But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.
Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC. It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client. SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.
But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts,
and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court..
But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.
That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
You DO know what a DLC is, right? I means it is an add-on to a main product.
SQ42 is NOT an add-on as it does NOT require Star Citizen for it to work. It doesn't matter if it is launched from the same launcher like Star Marine, Arena Commander or not. As long as it is stand-alone, and sold separately, it is not DLC.
It is already in court.
The judge can't dismiss any part of the lawsuit. She can only agree to or deny parts of the MtD which pertain to the original complaint.
The Golden Rule is immaterial to this case; and that's what I expect the judge's ruling to show. In fact, the MtD hurts CIG more than it helps, because it's just going to give them an idea of how good or bad the case is for them. Which is where settlements come from.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek. After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to. That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split. You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .
We will have to wait and see . Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek. After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to. That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split. You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .
We will have to wait and see . Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.
What makes you think that you know better than Skadden ?
What makes you think Skadden is right, an all the other law professionals who spoke out, including council for CIG, are wrong?
You believe Skadden has a perfect record? That they only take cases that are sure winners?
What makes you think Skadden is right, an all the other law professionals who spoke out, including council for CIG, are wrong?
You believe Skadden has a perfect record? That they only take cases that are sure winners?
I dunno. Maybe because there are good and bad lawyers? And because Skadden, unlike those other guys, have more facts about the case?
Well if you want to place your bets on Skadden/Crytek maybe having evidence to show the language of the GLA is different than what it would mean in the common usage, then go ahead. I hope you are right and they do, but I have my doubts that they do. I am afraid this is going to be like the Facebook/Bethesda suit where Bethesda/Skadden lost all the major points of the complaint and won the minor complaints, so I can see the same thing happening here where Crytek/Skadden might only win on the parts of not giving updates to Cryek and bugsmashers.
We will see. What I want to happen and what I think will most likely happen are very much polar opposites. lol.
Well if you want to place your bets on Skadden/Crytek maybe having evidence to show the language of the GLA is different than what it would mean in the common usage, then go ahead. I hope you are right and they do, but I have my doubts that they do.
I am afraid this is going to be like the Facebook/Bethesda suit where Bethesda/Skadden lost all the major points of the complaint and won the minor complaints, so I can see the same thing happening here where Crytek/Skadden might only win on the parts of not giving updates to Cryek and bugsmashers.
We will see. What I want to happen and what I think will most likely happen are very much polar opposites. lol.
I can't wait to read their response this Friday. I personally believe it's going to be amazing and completely devastating to CIG.
You DO know how silly that sounds, right? Different case, different parties, DIFFERENT EVERYTHING. That's like comparing Apples to Eggs.
The point of the comparison is to show just because Skadden is involved, it doesn't automatically mean everything in a complaint is true and can be proven, it doesn't automatically mean that Skadden is right.
Of course, I'm skeptical when Derek in his latest tweetroll unloads a chain of ad homines in place of an argument:
But remember something Mr. French said about the initial complaint: it was short, outlining the causes for action without providing all the gory details. His view was that this was a sign they were looking to settle.
And here comes Skadden on behalf of CryTek, and they cry "shakedown".
Well, the strength of the case is not just that the contract was broken, but also that, to even discuss it, CGI/rsi will have to admit to their dwindling fanbase that the story they've been telling is not entirely accurate. Even as their thug -driven hype machine tries to spin it, the cognitive dissonance will eat away at their backers. So this lawsuit in itself has a huge cost to the defendants, one they don't seem to realize as they cheerfully reveal the business details that the plaintiff merely alluded to.
I am looking forward to Skadden's response. Now that CIG/RSI has put into play all these aspects that the initial complaint merely threatened, we can get to the meat.
The game may suck, but the meta is fantastic.
(http://static.adweek.com/adweek.com-prod/wp-content/uploads/files/news_article/better-call-saul-tca-hed-2015.png)(http://static.adweek.com/adweek.com-prod/wp-content/uploads/files/news_article/better-call-saul-tca-hed-2015.png)
Yes, ad homines, like mocking the opposition as non practicing YouTube lawyers.
Okay, you might try to counter that the fact they are non practicing and using YouTube to generate revenue is relevant, since they are appealing to their own authority.
That said, I do suspect Derek of having sources close to the litigation. How else would be know that Ortwin in the waiver presented CIG as a third party and did not disclose the public fact that he was a founding member? Assuming, of course, that the waiver says what Skadden claims it does.
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
page 8: "In any event, Defendants' bare assertion that they "are not using any copyrighted work belonging to Crytek" ... presents a disputed factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss."
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
And, yeah, I am arguing with myself. Beneath all the bluster and insults, there's some very solid intelligence coming out here. Compare that to the SC media engine, where whiny boys fall over each other to invent a narrative on what's actually happening. My point was that the reason the CryTek response wasn't surprising was because, following the discussion here, we already knew what it would look like.
"So it's irrelevant to me how people view sourced material. Believe what you want, I don't care. And nobody cares what YOU think."
It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?
About my argument with myself:
I wouldn't ask Dr. Smart to give up his sourced material. But I would observe that his sources have until now accurately predicted CryTek's moves. He's now claiming that the worst (for CIG and companies) is yet to come. I'm also sure that CryTek would be very happy to settle, and having a third party make such claims would be very much in their interest in applying pressure.
So, are they gonna call the bluff or fold here? 'cos my gut tells me it's not a bluff.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention, have you?
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,
It's not. CIG already said that they switched. The issue is that they claim the GLA allows them to do so, while Crytek says that it doesn't.
Now you're arguing with yourself.
Indeed. And this is why it is so important to emphasize that whether CIG/RSI removed CryEngine is, for the lawsuit, a disputed point of fact. CryTek did not say, "yes, we grant that CryEngine was removed with the switch to LY," but rather left room for some fun in discovery. CIG says they removed all coprighted material, CryTek disputes this. This wrinkle is first made explicit in their reply to the MtD. Yes, it's what Derek has been saying all along.
As a dev, I still maintain that CIG have NOT switched to LY, that they are STILL using their custom CE3, while using LY parts (e.g. AWS SDK) which are required by Amazon in order to use their engine.
I remain 100% confident that I am RIGHT, and that they're going to be exposed.
The argument that because LY uses CE3 and so the switch was OK, falls flat when you consider that a license to CE3 is NOT a license to LY.
And this is why we have version control repo logs.
Goddamn! I want to be on that discovery forensics team.
At 2:25 there's some code on screen, which looks very much like CryEngine code and not Lumberyard. CE uses scaleform UI, which is basically flash. LY does not have this, does not come with a scaleform license, and uses a different UI system. So 2.6 was CryEngine, and not Lumberyard. The switch never happened. Called it. They just cherrypicked network stuff from LY onto their codebase, keeping CE specific stuff, essentially still being CryEngine.
And yeah, if you go as far as 3:26 then it appears that he's editing a customised version of the file CRYENGINE\Code\CryEngine\CryAction\FlashUI\FlashUIElement.cpp
As PederP says, this was part of CryEngine and Lumberyard doesn't have any FlashUI code in it because it uses a different UI. (see repo here for what survives from CE)
And although they've only published a couple of lines for the public to see, the greater point is that it does seem that they're not meant to be using that file any more, if they have switched over to Lumberyard. No doubt that this is why CT are claiming that the infringement might be ongoing.
And if they are still using CE's FlashUI... does that also mean that they must still be using Scaleform? Because that was the subject of the Exhibit 4 document (the one with CR's sig on it) and it's a sub-license to allow CIG to use Autodesk's Scaleform within CE - middleware software that Amazon have dropped - and the license to use was only valid under the terms of the GLA.
So if they're saying they're not under the CE GLA, and if they are still using CE FlashUI with 3rd party Scaleform to display HUD's and Mobiglass (or even just for 2.6.0.0 seen in the video) well this could get even messier yet.
They claim to have switched December 2016, the video was recorded (according to the desktop clock) and published early January 2017.
I hope there's a legit reason for this, but I can't see how this is not as bad as it looks.
It's advantageous to have a name closer to the top of an alphabetical sort.
@dsmart Well, would you want to be associated with Sean Tracy? Yeah neither do I. ;)
LOL!! Well, he responded https://twitter.com/KazeOfKami/status/968273115544395776
*BREAKING*
Several at F42-UK (Star Citizen) left|on way out. Studios (e.g. Everywhere Games who use Lumberyard) aggressively recruiting - and have several agencies helping them staff 100+ positions.
CIG/RSI freaking out and offering a lot of incentives for people to stay.
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/970698828641861632
The guy seems pretty well prepared. How much of a headache is this going to be for CIG if the court rules against them?
Whelp! Chris is currently live on Twitch (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/279019448) and just confirmed (@ 01:01:23) that Squadron 42 is NOT coming in 2018.
Yup. I called that one (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6129/) back in Dec 2017.
(http://i.imgur.com/LNORyZL.jpg)
Updated with time stamp
Ah yes the SQ42 Roadmap [st]lies[/st] excuses:
- Production, at the moment, doesn't feel comfortable sharing what we have
- We've got to figure out some way not to give things away
- If we had a roadmap we've got to release it at the end
- Not everything is buttoned down
- Production is very reluctant to release something which may change
- We've also had to adapt to the new Agile process
- It's insanely big and ambitious, and probably shouldn't have been done
- From a confidence standpoint, nobody wants to put something out there which will change again and get criticised
- The Production team are very sensitive to criticism
- That's just how game development works - other games have taken just as long
- We need better long term planning, it's very difficult
- Erin needs to feel comfortable with it
- I don't lie, I'm an optimist by nature because I'm a creative type
Well, John Pritchett (IFCS, physics etc) has made it public that he's left the building! This is HUGE!
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1286733
He has a doctorate btw, and is one of the best devs they have. He has been replaced by a jnr dev, Dave Colson (https://twitter.com/dave_colson/status/893240658487631872), who's only worked on basic FPS games.
I though it was odd they way the flight model information was released and still surprised Chris let it him publish it. Just another strange turn of events, I find it hard to believe that his work is close to finished. I have to believe they could break his work considering how much left for them to try and cobble together.
It's actually pretty clever - for him. A programmer can't take IP with him to show another company at an interview and that includes design documentation that he's written. So if you want to show a prospective employer something significant you've done at another company then you show him shipping product - which is obviously impossible in this case 'cause you want to show something that works, or ... you do what he did!
(He'll still have to answer questions about why, exactly, all that cool stuff isn't actually in the product right now, and that'll necessarily conflict with the usual rule that you don't badmouth former employers in an interview, but he's ok there too: Aas long as he stays in the gaming segment of the industry everyone will know what's going on with Roberts Space Industries.)
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1013040712429002752
just needs the man in the image to be shopped to have his fingers crossed behind his back :emot-laugh:
He has me on auto-mod on his channel where I posted this.
Fear not Derek does not need any alts because I am often told that I am DS as an alt. This simply reinforces Dereks statement that these loons see DS lurking behind every anti SC or Croberts posting. They simply cannot imagine anyone finding fault with the plans of fearless leader Croberts. Losers.
Meet the guy (https://www.linkedin.com/in/colsondavid/) who is now in charge of IFCS
Yeah, he's totally going to be taking over what JP originally designed and maintained for five years (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1273761).
# P can pitch
# R can roll
# Y can yaw
# A can fly
# T can translate in XYZ // disabling this prevents object from moving
# E has propulsion system
# G affected by gravity
# U can maneuver while on seabed (otherwise will not be able to move)
# F can float at water level without sinking
# V velocity diffs from orientation
# O orientation independent of velocity
# P pitch rate (d/s) // rate of pitch
# R roll rate (d/s) // rate of roll
# Y yaw rate (d/s) // rate of yaw
# p pitch spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along pitch axis
# r roll spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along roll axis
# y yaw spin rate (d/s) // rate of spin along yaw axis
# L low speed limit (m/s) // low speed threshold
# C cruise speed (m/s) // cruise speed threshold
# H high speed limit (m/s) // high speed threshold
# A best acceleration // best acceleration
# D best deceleration // best deceleration. Presently == acceleration
# T rebuild time (min) // unit rebuild time
# J jump transit time (ms) // hyperjump transit duration
# j jump recharge time (ms) // hyperjump engine recharge time
#
BCRUZMK1.3D,BATTLECRUISER MK1,SARc,
?24,*1000,!25000,%150,A0.1768,L150,C275,H400,&1800000,j90000,J80000,P10,R12,Y14,[1500,]2500,^45000,<100,>25000,{1000,}150000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
WARMONGER.3D,WARMONGER,SARc,
?23,*1000,!30500,%150,A0.2144,L150,C300,H575,&1000000,j45000,J60000,P14,R15,Y18,[2500,]3500,^35000,<100,>25000,{1000,}125000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
CANLON.3D,CANLON,SARc,
?21,*1000,!22500,%200,A0.1200,L100,C120,H300,j30000,J120000,P12,R16,Y20,[500,]1500,^60000,<100,>25000,{1000,}175000,(_PRYATVNEW)
#
ICMK1.3D,INTERCEPTOR MK1,SARc,
?22,*500,!10000,%125,A0.1068,L125,C305,H650,&600000,j20000,J15000,P22,R30,Y28,[200,]200,^35000,<100,>15000,{50000,}75000,(PRYATVNEW)
He didn't spend 5 years on it. The doc just explains what he spent 5 yrs doing - and never finishing it.
Thank you for the response, its hard for me to understand Chris requesting something so complex upfront. I have to wonder if there was any cross training before John and others left.
With something so complex seems like this could be another Iffonic disaster with more wasted effort and backer funds. Was that development testing that you were doing on the youtube video? Seemed like you have planetary and ground fps all in one, with atmospheric effects as well.
Thank you for the response, its hard for me to understand Chris requesting something so complex upfront. I have to wonder if there was any cross training before John and others left.
With something so complex seems like this could be another Iffonic disaster with more wasted effort and backer funds. Was that development testing that you were doing on the youtube video? Seemed like you have planetary and ground fps all in one, with atmospheric effects as well.
Well isn't Chris requesting complex systems actually his major problem?
Then again requesting complex system is the easiest thing in the world. Especially when your mind isn't hindered by any training in regards towards technical (and logical) limitations.
Well it's no different from all the promises of drink mixer machines, actual working internal ship systems etc. Did you miss all those ludicrous promises made over the years? My favorite was that one where they were showing working missile tubes in a ship (that's not even in the game). So a complex flight dynamics system is par for the course. If you read JP's design doc (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a/1273761) on the IFCS system, you will see how ludicrously complex it is. Which is why it continues to have issues.
Well it's no different from all the promises of drink mixer machines
Ready for CIG to come out with a 'clarification' when the salt avalanche turns out to be real.....
how detached from reality are they? who would be surprised they did not sell out .... people aren't taking a holiday in the middle of the week, spending like 1k to come and see a presentation in an expensive venue on what a game might be if it could be developed.
Citizencon is now behind a paywall! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Zelots are already defending it using Blizzard to justify their action, but the r/sc is up in arms. Oh this is too good!
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/citizencon/tickets
https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Add-Ons/CitizenCon-Digital-Ticket
BREAKING NEWS!!
It appears as if CIG have finally reached the limits of hilarity.
The October CitizenCon is going to be paywalled.
I have reached out to my sources for confirmation because I simply don't believe they're this desperate for money. Wow.
Unlike previous years, they've had a hard time selling tickets this year. And the venue is going to set them back a cool $1M+. So unable to sell tickets, if true, this is their way of forcing backers to pay to watch the event if not attending.
God I hope this is true, and they go through with it; because the fallout would be epic. And we'd be set with lols right through the holidays.
Who am I kidding?
It's Star Citizen. There's always more; and it's always worse.
Yup. They're totally doing it.
I'm laughing so hard right now, I had to re-align my sphincter.
Yeah, it's absolutely amazing to me. I tweeted about this (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1035327999812493319) last night when I found out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9box4p/confirmation_citizencon_stream_is_a_concierge/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bp1ax/full_presentation_behind_paywall_confirmed_in_faq/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bt490/i_dont_want_to_be_involved_anymore/
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/9bq9zp/the_pledge_cigs_promise_to_treat_backers_with_the/
Hell, even Montoya is mad at them.
What's really sad is they think this little bitty minor detail is upsetting. Its the equivalent to seeing some dirt in your drive way and getting upset at it while your oblivious to your whole house on fire.
:emot-lol:
Well that was quick
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/citizencon-streaming)
And now we'll most likely get to see how the god emporer will be praised by his plebs for listening to them for once...
Seeing how CIGs tactics are judged compared to EAs and Co. really makes me nauseous. I think social researcher really could have nice field day with CIG and the fan behaviour...
Perhaps roberts intent was to engraciate himself by first appearing miserly.
Perhaps roberts intent was to engraciate himself by first appearing miserly.
Oh? You think he did this because he's "listening" to them; and not because it's just bad optics one month to the event?
It's all about money. Once again, he planned something that he blew the budget on. Then he tried to get backers to pay for the excess. That's all there is to it. Had he not reversed, it would have tainted the event from now right to Oct 10th. He had to make a choice.
Meanwhile, we're 3K up votes into yet another thread about the latest fiasco
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/9bwpmq/star_citizen_ceo_chris_roberts_reverses/
It’s a criminal offence not to file your statement within 14 days of the end of the review period. If you don’t file, your company and its officers may be prosecuted. Your company may also be struck off the register.
Well, we're now in criminal behavior territory as they haven't filed accounts (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227) for CIG (the parent company that owns/runs/funds RSI and F42)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/confirmation-statement-guidance
Ben Lesnick
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1054403253096583168
I thought he was a little off, but it shows Chris's nepotism has really helped him bring the dumpster fire to full burn.
So what is the allegation... he was manipulating CIGs system so he could get free ships then selling them on Grey Market ..or just buying up limited edition ships and selling them on the Grey Market ?
I did a bit of trading in the SC Grey Market but my RMT experience came from several years in Warcraft, Aion etc farming and selling currency and buying accounts.
No clue how he was procuring the ships; but the allegation is that him and others were engaged in Grey market ship sales for quite a long period of time.His wife was in CS no? Wouldn't be hard for her to generate some JEPGs, judging from my past reactions the logs are not very well kept and they can pretty much do whatever they want. From day one they said the 890J was not available as a CCU, I sent them a ticket asking to upgrade my ship to my reserved 890J from Citcon. Once it became clear I had no intent of buying the 890J if it wasn't a CCU (was like a $60 difference) they allowed it.
His wife was in CS no? Wouldn't be hard for her to generate some JEPGs, judging from my past reactions the logs are not very well kept and they can pretty much do whatever they want. From day one they said the 890J was not available as a CCU, I sent them a ticket asking to upgrade my ship to my reserved 890J from Citcon. Once it became clear I had no intent of buying the 890J if it wasn't a CCU (was like a $60 difference) they allowed it.
Point being CS can bend the rules and generate ships np and no one holds them to any standard beyond profit. She could of easily made a bunch of ships for BL to sell for personal profit.
It didn't take 5 days, the financial filing is up now! Any of you smart people want to take a look? It seems to show that the cost per year is 17mil or so, and they have 4mil cash on hand with the loan due as far as I can see, but it's not my field of expertise.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
I wonder if they are just hiding any income in one of their other many corporate shells that feed this shell. The British corporation existing for the sole reason to take tax rebates. I'll leave it to those better suited to examine this. If things were this grim you would think they would be laying off staff by the hundreds.
I wonder if they are just hiding any income in one of their other many corporate shells that feed this shell. The British corporation existing for the sole reason to take tax rebates. I'll leave it to those better suited to examine this. If things were this grim you would think they would be laying off staff by the hundreds.
It are the figures up to 31/12/2017. Almost 10 months have passed again, so a lot could have (has) happened since then.
Deary me no, you must be mistaken. They ran out of money years ago.
Do we have any idea about how many employees are at their UK studio(s)?
I'm sure the costs of running all the studios has been estimated already but it doesn't hurt to confirm with new figures.
Yeah, I am working on this atm. In the meantime, I have a series of Tweets. I have to run, so please post the link on /r/refunds if you can
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1072861528632766464
CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
Yeah, I am working on this atm. In the meantime, I have a series of Tweets. I have to run, so please post the link on /r/refunds if you can
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1072861528632766464
Yeah, nobody pays attention to those lunatics. The real action is in /r/starcitizen and /r/starcitizen_refunds
Someone spotted that adding up the transferred shares of creators Chris Roberts, Erin Roberts, Ortwin Freyermuth adds up to the 18500 shares transferred to Infratrade Group Corp - which appears to be a new shell company with zero online presence.
I am willing to bet that new shell co is owned by those three.
CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
But how can they take money out of a company that has no money?
Maybe someone with more understanding can elaborate but it appears they created the shares for pennies on the dollar?
But how can they take money out of a company that has no money?
CIG | 113861 | Ł17,037,021.43 |
Chris | 14598 | Ł2,184,298.74 |
Errin | 1301 | Ł194,668.63 |
Ortwin | 2601 | Ł389,187.63 |
Oh Jezus Fucking Christ, can't you even read? Personal shares are sold and that money goes into personal accounts. Public shares are sold and that money flows back into the company account.
Oh, why do even I bother?
Net result though is CIG bank balance increases though right?
BREAKING NEWS
Is CIG looking to sell?
Not with the personal money. No.
So by stating that money goes into CIG's bank account you were saying...ermmm...what exactly?
I swear you're just asking to be banned now.
Personal (Chris, Erin, Ortwin) share sales go into their bank accounts.
Company (CIG) share sales go into the CIG bank account.
Which part are you struggling with?
I'm struggling with the part where CIG getting millions of dollars for selling a small amount of equity, is a bad thing for CIG.
BREAKING NEWS
Is CIG looking to sell?
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1074708047874936833
The problem is that S42 may be more an idea than a game. Yeah there are assets and contracts with actors but we dont know what he promised to pay them, how much work
The fact the Squander 42 roadmap has been delayed year after year tells me it is so far away that they don't feel comfortable letting the backers see how long it is going to be, even with their bullshit timelines that will inevitably slip further and further away.
It was my understanding that Squander 42 was to be build on the same foundation as SC.
No game dev has ever set out to make a single player game by making an MMO first.
Aside from the delayed filing of this investment and new director appointment, it's also curious that even though Dan was appointed on Mar 23, 2018, when they filed (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history) their 2017 financial statement (my review (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/6723/)) on Oct 26, 2018, they never listed him as a director. This is required by law; and yet somehow the auditors missed or deliberately omitted this. Had he been listed, we would have known about his appointment back in Oct.
(https://i.imgur.com/h0SyabY.jpg)
Could it happen in a perfect world where Chris Robbers has a stroke? Perhaps. Nobody will ever know because that prick will ride this horse till it's shit out every last backer dollar there is to take. Then he will sell retro T shirts to the weepy backers because he has the rights to this failed project. I bet they would buy them too.
The deluxe Chris Robbers commemorative T shirt "I spent my childrens college fund on Star Citizen and got divorced and all I got was this fucking T shirt with Chris Robbers body odor " "I'll never wash it" declared a former backer as he watched the internet every day for years seaching for news of a publisher looking to buy the rights to the project.
The End.
That "Letter from the Chairman" is such bullcrap! He makes it sound like he bumped into billionaire Clive Calder at the local Starbucks and they felt so much mutual love that they just had to go into business together. :emot-lol:
I guarantee that CIG will make EA and Bethesda look like angels. These guys wont even bother to spit on it before they stick it in.
In today's UK filing, we find out that back in Nov, they changed the name of the parent company from Cloud Imperium Games, to Cloud Imperium. They're only just now filing that too.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history
I wonder if the new investors are demanding things like this.
Clearly there's a new push for SQ42.
Apparently SQ42 on consoles is a thing again
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1077272581974175744
Clearly there's a new push for SQ42. I wonder if the new investors are holding Chris's feet to the fire and making sure he gets things done as promised.
I wonder if the new investors are demanding things like this.
Here is where they will make their money.
They will follow in EA's and Bethesda's path and monetize the shit out of it. Yes, Even Squadron 42. As you said they sold it to mosxt of the limited market for that style game. It's a sort of captive audience just as Star citizen is. You have to know that Robbers had plans to monetize Star Citizen shamelessly. He could change everything that drives the market at will. The number of "random" pirate attacks, how large the swarm is, the cost of missiles and fuel, repairs and insurance along with things you havent even thought of before.
What is to stop a similar but not quite so burdensome set of costs that an occaisional $10 here or there wont help? He wont call them loot boxes but supply boxes. You can fly annoying time consuming grindy missions or just buy his supplies for cash.
The only stupid people here are his backers who blindly throw money at him as if it was flowers at the feet of the Messiah. Robbers investors plan on getting return on investment asap. I wouldnt be surprised to see robbers become a figurehead whose sole purpose is to be the face of the company and to raise cash.
So they give him the cash to "finish the game." What happens when that's not enough?
Wayshuba posted:
Sure, this will be a bit long but I will do my best to keep it as concise as possible.
While the investors have only 10% of the company that does not mean they are only entitled to 10% of the money in a sale. It is highly unlikely, with the amount of money involved that they took a straight 10% common share allocation. While the exact terms of the CIG deal are unknown, we can base it on what are usual terms for PE investors in a deal like this and those would be a preferred position with a 1x-1.5x liquidation preference. For sake of this example, I will use a preferred 1x liquidation terms. Keep in mind when it comes to private equity (PE) profit means absolutely nothing.
PE investors care about two things when you take their money – what is the most likely return and what is the exit strategy (i.e., the point where they get there money). That means two things – either selling the company or going public.
What this means is that if CR sells the company preferred investors are entitled to money before anyone else and a 1x liquidation term means they get their money back first.
So if CR were to sell the company for $150 million to a large publisher, the investors would first be entitled to $46m of it (1x liquidation), then they would get 10% of the remainder – so $10.4m – before anyone else does. If there is debt on the company, it would be paid AFTER the preferred investor gets their money out of CRs proceeds. This means the investors would get $56.4m on the sale. CR also mentioned he owned 75% of the company, so he would walk away with $78m in his own pocket.
Based on the roadmap and financials, CIG is burning $12m/quarter and this amount basically means the investment gives them a one year runway. The roadmap has made it clear they will not have a final product for sale until sometime, at best, in Q3 or Q4 of 2020. Which means they cannot have a revenue stream until that time. The goodwill of backers is NOT a revenue stream. Furthermore, CR must see that that source is starting to decline otherwise he never would have went for outside PE.
So, let’s say SQ42 finally does release in Q3 2020. How much revenue does anyone really think they are going to make? Most of that product is owed to backers as debt (i.e., has already been paid for) so now it is a matter of how many you will sell to non-backers. How many copies does one realistically think they will sell of SQ42? Maybe 1m-2m more? So maybe another $75m-$100m. But what if the backers represent 90% of the buyers and you release to only another $20m in sales. That would smash the value of the company.
This is why right now in 2019 CR will get the highest value for the company – before releasing a product – and from a business perspective why it is best to sell the company to a large publisher. If he does, his investors make a return, he becomes uber-wealthy, and a big publisher with deep pockets then has the responsibility to deliver to backers. If he releases and it bombs, all of that goes away. From CRs perspective, it is financially smarter to unload this turkey BEFORE releasing a product.
Hope that clears things up
Derek Smart posted:
Also anyone who knows anything about investment, will notice that this valuation is meaningless because these awful financials basically means these investors probably used Liquidation Preference & Convertible Notes conditions in their purchase agreement. In fact, it’s the only thing that makes sense for them to have given up $46M to someone who, after six years, couldn’t build a single game with $211M in free money.
Wayshuba posted:
I see the exact same play he does (though I wouldn’t push for convertibles, but rather an up on the liquidation preference with a straight preferred position).
The financial upside to CR at this point is to sell the company. This investment gives him the runway time to do that. CR is, and always has been, about the money. Don’t fool yourself as it is his long history. If releasing the final product could make him more money he would take that route. But his best play here, at this point, is to sell the company.
Derek Smart posted:
With investors (NOTE: We have no insight about the US side of things) now having so much money in the project, and with an installed $46M babysitter, we’re now entering a new dawn which I firmly believe signals not only the end of this farce, but also lawsuits abound. The difference this time is that there’s no EA or Microsoft who have the capacity to kick Chris out, rebuild etc. Instead, with someone like Dan who has extensive knowledge and experience in the industry, once this fails – as I still fully expect that it will – he’s just going to sell everything and have his clients take what they can from the proceeds, while writing off their losses as a tax incentive.
Wayshuba posted:
PE Investors invest to make a return on their investment. They could care less if you a making a pet rock or have the cure for cancer. They only care about a return.
That being said, where is the play here to make them that return? Simple.
They most likely came in at a Preferred Position and with a 1x to 1.5x liquidation preference. Any other way wouldn’t make sense.
CR didn’t go to the publishers because they are the target for the next move.
Now, let’s say CR sells his company to Activision, EA or Ubisoft for $250m. Pocket change to them. The outside investors, with a $46m 1x liquidation would get roughly $66m of that (not a bad return for probably less than 12 months investment). Then any remaining shareholders (most likely just CR and his wife) would get the remainder (so CR walks away with over $180m).
Then you now have one of the big publishers with the burden of delivering the final product – ala Digital Anvil.
And backers will eventually get their product as a result (except is will be drastically less than expected) and CR is off the hook for it and walks away a very rich man.
Well played on his part.
That's a really interesting read.
Thing is, why take the Private Equity investment before going to the publishers to try and sell CIG?
The "1-year runway" is to get the project in a position where someone would want to buy it. The thing is, as Derek implies, there's not gonna be some big industry player wanting to buy a game built on the crowdfunding premise that the big labels won't support a cool space game: even if the damn thing worked, all a big label would get would be grief for ruining the vision of an already-blind man. CR's best hope is someone like Amazon, with tons of cash, an interest in getting into the market, and having a proprietary platform involved, so they can't see how broken things really are.
I still don't see it happening.
@Derek aren't Publishers themselves looking at such projects as venture capital and therefore demanding high returns - meaning at least thrice the money they put in?
I can't imagine any mainstream publisher getting involved in a company that's already pre-sold over half their "on paper" valuation. Why would they? And what would be in it for them when they know they have to deliver product that's already paid for, and money croberts and his minions already got and blew through?
That's why they went to dark money; then got someone like Dan to babysit it.
The investors must be expecting for it to be sold or Squander 42 to be a big success though, why else would they invest 46 mil in this shit show?
Having that Dan guy on board seems to point to the fact that they want to sell the company, given his involvement with Oculus....
That's what I'm talking about. Fans of Oldman, Anderson, Hamil, Davies, Strong, Gardiner...et al, may well be tempted into a fun sci-fi game if they see it advertised. The cast may...I stress the word 'may', bring in a different audience.
They may have saturated the market but I don't believe it's sold every copy it can. I see plenty of posts around suggesting a lot of people are waiting on a game to be finished before handing over cash as well.
Never underestimate the Powah of Celebrity! There are many an idiot drawn to a famous face or name and compelled to spend money.
They're going to be targeting gamers who would be remotely interested in Rebel Galaxy Outlaw and X4 Foundations which are so much more than what SQ42 is likely to offer. In fact, X4 Foundations, like my own UCCE game, has less than 200K units on Steam according to SteamSpy (X4 (http://steamspy.com/app/392160), UCCE (http://steamspy.com/app/345580)). Elite Dangerous, which is more on par with Star Citizen, has over 1M owners (http://steamspy.com/app/359320) on Steam.
It's why Star Citizen became a runaway funding success due to this mindset that 'nobody else is going to do this". And then croberts squandered that goodwill and has basically destroyed the project.
That's what I'm talking about. Fans of Oldman, Anderson, Hamil, Davies, Strong, Gardiner...et al, may well be tempted into a fun sci-fi game if they see it advertised. The cast may...I stress the word 'may', bring in a different audience.
They may have saturated the market but I don't believe it's sold every copy it can. I see plenty of posts around suggesting a lot of people are waiting on a game to be finished before handing over cash as well.
Never underestimate the Powah of Celebrity! There are many an idiot drawn to a famous face or name and compelled to spend money.
At this point, I don't think it matters what state SQ42 will be released in, or even if it turned out good. What matters is that they are now just doing the bare minimum in order to deliver on the main things from the kickstarter. Aside from the financial brochure (which surprised me tbh) which was a key point, SQ42 represents the final aspect. Remember, as I have been saying for years now, it doesn't what state or shape the final results are in because they are legally protected by the guarantee of performance condition. So they could implement something, even if it doesn't work as expected. The bottom line is that the creators and execs got rich based on lies. The only good part is that they provided jobs for a large number of people over the years.
I am still baffled as to why any investor would put money into this project. All I think can think of is that it probably has something to do with perhaps a movie. Also, as per the other discussion (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg11237#msg11237) about that aspect, this investor probably has protections guaranteeing that he gets his money back out in some fashion. The fact that they were touting this money as being for SQ42, is a huge Red flag that the investment relies heavily on it's sales performance.
CIG have released the 2018 financials on holiday eve. I am not going to even bother with an analysis (as I did last year (http://dereksmart.com/2018/12/star-citizen-a-new-dawn/) for 2012-2017) because the numbers speak for themselves. No way they can get this project 'done' (lmao) without continuing to raise money.
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018
And there's no way they aren't going to continue raising money. Record year, remember?
CIG have released the 2018 financials on holiday eve. I am not going to even bother with an analysis (as I did last year (http://dereksmart.com/2018/12/star-citizen-a-new-dawn/) for 2012-2017) because the numbers speak for themselves. No way they can get this project 'done' (lmao) without continuing to raise money.
https://cloudimperiumgames.com/blog/corporate/cloud-imperium-financials-for-2018
Hey remember back in 2015 when I wrote that Sandi and Chris were married, and they they were hiding it and pretending? Then it became public.
Well she's been out at CIG since last year; but they've been keeping that under wraps too.
As the saying goes, backers will never know.
FIVE ALARM FIRE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300543859307544580?s=20
When you have to explain common sense to fanboys...
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300756521995960320
FIVE ALARM FIRE
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/1300543859307544580?s=20
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
It's all getting a bit stale, isn't it. Everyone has moved on.
Very true, they continue to keep the faithful going with surprisingly so very little. They just posted a meme laughing and ships bouncing in the hangars as cool but are unable to admit the most basic issues.
It's what they've always done - and it works. So why change? They know they have saps for backers.
This combined arms mode will continue to see iteration and development to help progress Star Citizen’s and Squadron 42’s combat, and future tests will expand beyond the closed Evocati group to eventually include players in the Public Test Universe.
Found this from the refunds sub:
https://www.firesprite.com/news/2021/03/cloud-imperium-games-and-firesprite-unveil-development-partnership-for-star-citizen-multiplayer-mode/
Found this from the refunds sub:A game mode being made by a dev with virtually no experience in the genre it's in. And the closest thing they have done is something virtually nobody has heard of, much less touched. This is going to end well...
https://www.firesprite.com/news/2021/03/cloud-imperium-games-and-firesprite-unveil-development-partnership-for-star-citizen-multiplayer-mode/
A contractor has been brought in to work on ToW, presumably as they have a chance of releasing something when at arms length from CR and the development hell of the CIG studios. Interesting when ToW was originally sold to the backers as something that would not cost a lot of money, and would not take a lot of development resource.
So no mention of dates, but it could be another Ilfonic episode :laugh: It shows that they are moving more work away from the incompetent CIG to other companies that have a better chance of delivering. But it also suggests that their expenditure is rising at least in line with their income to do this.