Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Star Citizen / Re: The Star Citizenship
« Last post by StanTheMan on Today at 06:58:10 PM »
I think you're confused.  Toilet trading is part of the cargo career in Star Citizen, not the FPS SQ42.

I reckon with a bit of digging we could find an SC org organised around cottaging but yes,  now you mention it, there is not much time for that in an FPS.
2
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen - The E.L.E.
« Last post by StanTheMan on Today at 06:44:00 PM »
Quote

tl;dr: CIG tried to fuck over Crytek, thinking Crytek would go bust

Otherwise Ortwin and Croberts would have to be spectacularly dumb to have thought Crytek would allow all this to go on.

Reckless...

What sort of cash would they be due to pay Crytek if SC launched and how come they are not due for any of the JPEG cash (ie why wouldnt Crytek have asked for a % opf that in the contract ?)

3
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen - The E.L.E.
« Last post by dsmart on Today at 03:58:21 PM »
Latin Phoenix has an effort post up on SA



Ok, so things have calmed down a little since the initial hilarity of Crytek's lawsuit against CIG/RSI and I thought I'd do a minor effortpost on my thoughts so far on the case given what we've seen so far on the complaint.

Now, we don't have the GLA, nor do we know what communication took place between CIG and Crytek. What we can assume, however, is that:
1. Skadden are reasonably competent, given that they're considered a top international law firm; and
2. Skadden have pored through the GLA, any amendments and any communications between CIG/Crytek and felt that, on the facts discovered, they could make the five claims I'll talk about.

Because of these assumptions, I'm going to make some further assumptions of fact:
1. CIG/RSI had an agreement (GLA), and all the clauses mentioned in the complaint were in that agreement;
2. The agreement was never ended, either by a break clause exercised by CIG/RSI/Crytek, nor by mutual agreement; and
3. There were no automatic triggers in the GLA that ended the agreement (time limits, events, etc.).

With that in mind, let's get to the meat of the subject; Crytek's claims against CIG/RSI.

-----

Claim 1: CIG/RSI are developing a second game without a license from Crytek.
This one is one of the simpler ones to confirm; we know for a fact that Squadron 42 was never a separate game from Star Citizen, this can be seen in the Kickstarter, where Squadron 42 is listed as the 'singleplayer component' of Star Citizen (i.e. it was just a game mode in a single game). Following the initial pitch of a single game, it was only later that CIG decided to split Star Citizen into two independent, separately playable, packages (note how Squadron 42 does not require Star Citizen to play). This split is where Star Citizen became two games, and the point where CIG appears to have breached its contract with Crytek.

Claim 2: CIG agreed to market Cryengine, including keeping its logo on splash screens, showing the trademark on the website, etc.
Honestly, this is a no-brainer, there's very little to dispute here; we know that CIG very likely breached this because there's tons of very public changes to the CIG website, launcher, splash screen, etc. where Cryengine/Crytek's logos were removed and Lumberyard replaced them. In fact, it was so noticable that the commandos shat a brick when it first appeared around this time last year with no announcement.

Claim 3: CIG agreed to develop Star Citizen exclusively on Cryengine.
Again, this is something so well documented and lauded that there is little more to add here. The backers have tried pointing out that it Lumberyard is based on Cryengine which they say muddies the legal waters, but the fact is that CIG had no permission to use another engine to develop Star Citizen. What the basis of these engines are is irrelevant, the clause would have been breached the moment they announced the change, started plastering Lumberyard logos everywhere and using Lumberyard's tools.

Claim 4: CIG agreed to send bug updates/improvements to Crytek.
There are two factors to consider here; the first being that Crytek claims that CIG did send some updates/improvements in 2015 but that they were insufficient and not in good faith, while the second factor is that Crytek claims that CIG did not send any updates/improvements for 2016-2017. On the first factor, there will likely be some contention by CIG regarding whether what was sent in 2015 was in good faith or not. This likely means that there will be some expert opinion on what CIG sent to Crytek in 2015 and whether it is enough to satisfy CIG's obligations to Crytek in this clause.

The second factor, however, would be much more clear-cut if true; if CIG did not send any updates/improvements over the last two years, then it's almost certain that this would be seen as a breach of their contractual obligations.

Claim 5: CIG breached Crytek's copyright by chowing Cryengine's code on Bugsmashers and third parties.
Ok, this one is outside my comfort zone, but I suspect it will be down to legal and expert opinion in this case. The main issue at hand is 'how much exposure of code in Bugsmashers is enough to constitute a breach?'. This is something that would require some degree of expertise in US copyright law (which I don't have since I trained in the UK) so I can't really answer this and would also likely require expert testimony in the form of a game developer. In addition, whether or not CIG was sharing code with Faceware is something that could only be determined by seeing what evidence Crytek has to show this. Do note, though, that Skadden wouldn't flippantly make such claims without some damn good evidence/legal knowledge to back them up.

-----

Essentially, contract-wise, CIG would only come out of this unscathed if there was a break clause in the GLA that they exercised before claims 1-4 took place or if they otherwise mutually agreed with Crytek to do the same. Such a clause or agreement would be so obvious and such a basic thing to miss by Skadden that I cannot accept that this is the case here. CIG's response to the lawsuit (where they essentially agreed they breached claim 3) also displays an alarming(ly hilarious) degree of ignorance about the claims levelled against them.

Overall, this complaint makes a lot of things in CIG's past add up; the sudden change to Lumberyard makes sense if you consider that CIG was chained to an agreement with Crytek but saw an opportunity when Crytek suffered financial woes. My guess is that CIG couldn't get Cryengine to work for SC, saw Lumberyard and figured it would be easier to work with and then jumped ship, assuming that Crytek would simply disappear and no-one would pick up the contract and pursue them afterwards (or, alternatively, Chris didn't know that might happen or didn't care). The split of Squadron 42 may have been particularly scummy as it may have been CIG trying to stiff Crytek out of royalties for sales when it knew that Crytek would be unable to dispute their action (this is all just speculation, though).

tl;dr: CIG tried to fuck over Crytek, thinking Crytek would go bust, and it came screaming back to bite them in the ass.



4
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen Media Articles
« Last post by dsmart on Today at 03:38:52 PM »
I have always admired & respected SidAlpha for his usual neutral stance on Star Citizen; even 2yrs ago when most people thought I was insane (they didn't get the memo I guess) for suggesting the project was doomed. His latest:

5
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen Scoops, Musings and Blogs
« Last post by Spunky Munkee on Today at 02:24:37 PM »
Ditto. Aside from that Ortwin may still be a major partner with Robbers. If so it might behove him to provide sufficient legal services to keep the cash cow making milk. I'm sure he will charge CIG for his services and the backers will pay every dime of the cost. THey won't figure out that the whole situation was created by the wonder twins trying to scam Crytek and now CIG was scamming the backers doubly.  What a bunch of Nimrods.
6
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen Scoops, Musings and Blogs
« Last post by Greggy_D on Today at 02:03:04 PM »
I'd wager CIG do not have the money to settle.
7
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen - Meme Project
« Last post by lurker_404 on Today at 01:36:15 PM »
8
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen - The E.L.E.
« Last post by StanTheMan on Today at 01:12:10 PM »
It is all about Chris's stool..


Star Citizen is certainly a stool of Chris Roberts making.  Probably closer to types 1 and 7...it aint happy..and it is not a coherent mass...

9
Star Citizen / Re: Star Citizen Scoops, Musings and Blogs
« Last post by N0mad on Today at 12:37:29 PM »
Reading your Tweets about Skadden really put it in perspective, I knew CIG were screwed, but this is being screwed on a different magnitude.

It was interesting that Leonard French thought that the case, as written, probably indicated that they want a settlement. I'd guess that Crytek have a solid case (hence getting Skadden on board) but don't want to make too much of a fuss and just want a cut of the action as originally promised.

I'd be putting my money on CIG trying to string things out as much as possible, so no early settlement, then hoping that everyone forgets about the case in the new year and buys more ships in the next sale. However that might depend on what other bad stuff is going to happen next week !!   :supaburn:
10
Star Citizen / Re: The Star Citizenship
« Last post by David-2 on Today at 12:29:56 PM »
I suppose it is better than just showing a toilet trader..

I think you're confused.  Toilet trading is part of the cargo career in Star Citizen, not the FPS SQ42.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk