|
MedicineHut posted:Confused: One of the major complaints is that cry spent a lot of money promoting SC and if they cannot re coup that publicity they are owed money. this pretty central to the case. 
SoftNum fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jan 7, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Confused: "Damages" is a variable. How much damage has CIG caused Crytek by being overreaching and stupid, then blaming it on Cryengine? It's probably impossible to tell, but I imagine it's a significant sum. That's why actual final damages is TBD at court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
I have no idea about law, but this puzzles me... In the very beginning of the GLA, SC and SQ42 are mentioned as two games, hereafter named "The Game". This means that apparantly, CIG's rear end is covered in regards to the CryTek claim of CIG producing two games, while only having licenced CryEngine for one game. Then, in Exhibit 2, is says: quote: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. Here it says that standalone games are not permitted. So... This makes me believe that CIG might not be in the clear. As far as I know, SQ42 was supposed to be a game mode, inside the Star Citizen game itself. Had CIG kept it that way, it'd be covered under the first GLA definition. Since the GLA was signed, CIG has made a total and clear separation of SC and SQ42. You will be able to buy and download SQ42, and run this as a standalone game, with absolutely no connection to SC and the online universe. To me, this is a clear violation of the terms set up in Exhibit 2. Am I onto anything here, or have I misunderstood things horribly? Need a lawgoon, stat! Fangrim fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
If the termination clause is invokes, and CIG is ordered to get rid of CryEngine, can't CIG just claim that they're no longer using CryEngine, but Lumberyard as a base? Mad speculation: I wonder if the switch to LY was because they knew something was up, and oped that they could circumvent the GLA by ditching CryEngine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Fangrim posted:I have no idea about law, but this puzzles me... I don't know poo poo about gently caress legally but I know there are games that present singleplayer and multiplayer as two separate exe files. Call of Duty does it like that, or at least used to. I also remember that Bioshock 2's multiplayer had its own special name, Fall of Rapture. But while they're two separate programs, they're not standalone: you're not going to buy one without the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Spooder-Mun posted:...to buy one without the other. Didn't they sell pre-orders for SQ42 separately?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Seems like Crytek got CIG to sign a pretty badly written contract and it looks like CIG could end up winning this in court. That's not what the gist of it is. Either side can still sue for breach of contract and other claims. This is the key to Skadden sprinkling all those "intentional" words in the FAC. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
It will be extremely easy for a few 2012/2013 emails redlining the GLA to provide the clear and sane understanding that Cobbler had to use only Cryengine for the game to avoid royalty payments. This is a provision Cribbler and crytek would have discussed multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Switching engines or removing ads for cryengine are pretty intentional
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Confused: Yes and no. There are other causes of action which are beyond the contractual breach. That's why they went for a jury trial. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
My opinionated analysis of the CIG lawsuit response https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Switching engines or removing ads for cryengine are pretty intentional You know… knowing CIG's level of competence, I'm not entirely convinced something like that wouldn't just happen by accident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Hold on my eyes aren't believing this Holy poo poo it's the midget clown wrestling match of this decade Go figure Crytek wrote a contact and had, like, some inexperienced ip lawyer just starting out review it How does jesus
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
SoftNum posted:One of the major complaints is that cry spent a lot of money promoting SC and if they cannot re coup that publicity they are owed money. this pretty central to the case. Precisely. CryTek gave CIG a huge fee discount -- particularly in light of the massive $175m take -- in order to be repaid in marketing and publicity. So, though CIG haven't owed dollars to CryTek, CIG have not repaid CryTek in the currency they demanded: positive publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Yes and no. There are other causes of action which are beyond the contractual breach. That's why they went for a jury trial. IANAL so unless I am reading 6.1.4 wrong the 1.85 €MM damage cap in case of gross negligence (or worst) mentioned in the second to last sentence seems to apply only to Crytek. Which would make sense since that is the money they received from the licensee and could theoretically be used to compensate it in case of gross negligence (or worst) by CryTek. The opening sentence in the clause simply places the threshold for no damages at gross negligence for both parties. This would mean that if you managed to prove gross negligence, or intent, Crytek would be covered with a 1.85 €MM cap whereas CIG is fully exposed. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Preen Dog posted:Didn't they sell pre-orders for SQ42 separately? The package split announcement from 2/2016 says that you can
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Spooder-Mun posted:The package split announcement from 2/2016 says that you can Right. If they were doing the same thing to Star Marine and/or Arena Commander, they would be in violation of the GLA. And had they treated SQ42 like Star Marine and Arena Commander - by not selling it separately - they wouldn't be subject to that specific breach of the GLA. They're so hosed, I've lost count of the number of ways. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
I wonder where Sean 'Criminal Cryengine Evangelest' Tracy falls in all this mess
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:I wonder where Sean 'Criminal Cryengine Evangelest' Tracy falls in all this mess Hopefully, at the least, he's a pillow talker to someone who's secretly working for CryTek. Or maybe he's developed a direct contact intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:IANAL so unless I am reading 6.1.4 wrong the 1.85 €MM damage cap in case of gross negligence (or worst) mentioned in the second to last sentence seems to apply only to Crytek. Which would make sense since that is the money they received from the licensee and could theoretically be used to compensate it in case of gross negligence (or worst) by CryTek. That's well and good, but I've been assured by multiple faithful that the lawsuit is now over and CryTek just got wrecked. So we don't need any silly speculation here. Case is cooked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
FailureToReport posted:That's well and good, but I've been assured by multiple faithful that the lawsuit is now over and CryTek just got wrecked. So we don't need any silly speculation here. Case is cooked. The unquenchable power of sperg dreams has defeated CryTek before they even get out of the gate. Skadden didn't see it coming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
I think we need Leonard J. Crabs to weigh in on this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Hey. I've been out of the loop, and my main source on Star Citizen was Major Tom Videos, so. I won;t ask if Star Citizen is done, or good, but I will ask, has anything in the game changed in the last year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
Once again, zero legal experience, but I've had a flick through the GLA and a little of CIG's response (not all of it, because holy poo poo it's unreadable), and it really pains me to say that I'm more on CIG's side at the moment. The crux of the issue is the exclusive section. Does Star Citizen need to be made in Cry Engine or not?  The section in question is 2.1.2, which is part of 2.1. Basically 2.1 (to non-lawyer idiot me) is saying who does what in relation to the game and Cry Engine (limitations are in section 2.2). The 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 all start with exclusive / non-exclusive to indicate who is doing what. So to me: 2.1.1 - You can make Cry Engine better, but you're not the only group doing that. However, that doesn't mean you can get other people to fix our engine without our written permission, as per 2.6, because we don't want people stealing our code. 2.1.2 - You, and you alone will make the game. Any sub-contractors, any sub-companies, anyone else, needs our written permission as per 2.6 (but we can't be unreasonable about it), because again, we don't want outsiders seeing our engine without a contract. 2.1.3 - You, and you alone will make and sell the game, but we really don't care if you sub-contract outside companies to publish and distribute the game for you. Sure, you can read 2.1.2 as if it limits the game to only being in Cry Engine, but you need to ignore the similar framing of the two points either side of it, and the context of the section as a whole. It's not a section saying that they must develop, support and maintain Cry Engine (but you can work on other engines as well), must only use Cry Engine, and they must sell Star Citizen and no other games. It's just saying who can do those things. If the game was supposed to be CE locked, you'd expect that to be 2.2 (with potentially exactly the same wording). If that line of reasoning holds, the rest of CryTek's arguments start to falter. Breaking S42 into another game is bad if they are using Cry Engine. CIG have paid for one game, not the ability to pay once and keep spinning of sub games indefinitely. This would be a breach of the pay-out to dodge royalties. But if they are using another engine, what royalty damages are there? The amount between the split and the switch perhaps, but I think we all know that no-one is really buying S42, and any royalties in that period would be less that the cost of a Skadden bathroom break. Also things like no longer showing the CryTek logos don't make sense if they aren't using the engine anymore, and would probably come under 10.6, which states (to non-lawyer me), if sections become unenforceable because of legal or factual reasons (and not using the engine would seem to be a factual reason to not advertise you're using the engine), you ignore that section and keep the rest of the agreement. Showing Cry Engine code on Youtube is still a problem, but it's looking pretty minor at this point. One of the big things to me is really the damages side of things. Other than a support and mod fee, CryTek is paid up. Even if Star Citizen becomes a mobile app, have they really lost anything by no longer being the engine used? What can they really ask for here? I started to think perhaps they were out for blood, not money (completely invalidating my previous line of thought), but even then, I don't think it would be that painful for CIG to terminate the agreement (sections 8.2 and 8.3). I mean, it would suck hilariously for the coders, who need to go through every line of code, cutting out the original CE code, then putting back the exact same legacy Lumberyard code. Practically I'd say they would just claim to have done it, because you wouldn''t be able to tell the difference. Also, is it just me, or does 8.3 reference section 6.3, which doesn't exist? Secret mystery clause! I can't see CryTek's end game here. Nothing makes sense to me anymore. They can't really claim blood or money. My only thought at the moment is this is some sort of huge trap to bait CIG into admitting breaches they haven't been charged with yet. The RSI defence springs to mind. "Hah! RSI is not CIG, checkmate Mr CryBabyTek!" "Well, did you get our written permission to sub-licence the development of our game? To a company who then proceeded to bag poo poo on us while showing our code to the world? This cost millions of dollars of damages to our reputation and future sales, which you are responsible for. We have an updated list of claims, and we're putting your previous claims into evidence." "ya whoah did ehp did eh woh did..." Other than that, and again, not a lawyer at all, this seems like CryTek is searching for an opening, rather than having a significant grievance. Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
CIG's argument about the limitations provision is a loser. The first sentence basically says that neither CIG nor Crytek can be liable for any kind of damages, except if there's been intentional or grossly negligent (basically extremely careless) conduct. This is why Crytek littered their amended complaint with 'intentional.' Under a plain reading of the provision, CIG is on the hook for any intentional conduct. CIG is arguing that 'intentional' is a tort concept, and that the provision really precludes all contract damages. This isn't going to work because the sentence plainly carves out intentional conduct, and they're stuck with the words of the contract. Plus, the idea that you can put something in your contract saying you can breach the contract with impunity is laughable, and a judge would bend over backwards to come up with any reading other than that. The second sentence only limits Crytek's liability to $1.85million; it does nothing for CIG. It's also badly written, because it removes that cap for gross negligence and says nothing about intentional, despite intentional being a higher level of misconduct. It's also redundant, because the first sentence should limit it to $0 anyway, but maybe it's just being extra careful. It's possible the first sentence is supposed to apply to all damages other than actual damages, in which case it all makes more sense, but it doesn't say that. Because whoever drafted this is bad at making contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:09
|
|
|
I have 20 years of experience in law that pertains to this specific scenario. Alas I cannot explain exactly what's going on as I have no experience in writing forum posts that are longer than t
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
To be honest, the attorneys of the Fourth Stimpieral Empire will be the true winners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:22
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Ubik_Lives posted:Also things like no longer showing the CryTek logos don't make sense if they aren't using the engine anymore, and would probably come under 10.6, which states (to non-lawyer me), if sections become unenforceable because of legal or factual reasons (and not using the engine would seem to be a factual reason to not advertise you're using the engine), you ignore that section and keep the rest of the agreement. Having a copyright notice or credit probably wouldn't even be wrong, since Crytek holds copyright to code that exists in Lumberyard too (I assume, but copyright is outside my area), so no matter what, Star Citizen is going to contain Crytek code.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:I have 20 years of experience in law that pertains to this specific scenario. in all my years of laughing at this video game...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
Which would be easier. Attempting to debone a live fish without breaking the skin or removing crytek cryengine code from your game while leaving lumberyard cryengine code alone. Serious question for code, legal or fish experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
I don't give a poo poo about anyone's arguments because none of it matters. All I care about are the lawyers stabbing each other again and again, and the fanboys getting riled up over every little update. Derek getting triggered on the lawyer stream is top notch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:I think this is overall a pretty good reading, and I even agree Crytek has a viable argument, but I can fill in some context on this part. "Unenforceable" is stronger than doesn't make sense, and usually amounts to impossible because a court says the provision is illegal. This clause is designed to stop the whole contract from falling apart if that happens. I don't think 'not making much sense' rises to that level. Does the Lumberyard GLA contain a provision that the licensee cannot take any actions to violate Crytek's copyright? Just wondering if this case now has the potential to drag Amazon into it due to any Crytek related things in the Lumberyard GLA. Perhaps this was discussed earlier (don't recall). EDIT: I assume there are the Lumberyard license terms, and I don't see anything about the CryEngine IP mentioned: https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/#57._Amazon_Lumberyard_Engine EDIT: Is it possible CryTek may have screwed themselves by not making mandatory a clause in the Lumberyard GLA that the Lumberyard GLA does not supersede any licensee agreements that have used prior CryEngine code? nnnotime fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Which would be easier. Attempting to debone a live fish without breaking the skin or removing crytek cryengine code from your game while leaving lumberyard cryengine code alone. As a fish expert, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Chalks posted:"I'm dumb" as a solid defence against breach of contract. Good job Ortwin, it's the perfect fit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
thatguy posted:If you had to pick one example of CIG's stupidity what would it be? I was going to make a joke but Chris beat me to it pretty hard with his escapist meltdown. Which is frustrating as the only reason I've even got this dumb thread open is because I wanted to make a boo box reference but haven't figured out the angle yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
thatguy posted:If you had to pick one example of CIG's stupidity what would it be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
God when you think about it Chris was literally set up for success at every turn and just pissed it away. He got the money, team, popularity, fandom, etc. needed to make a really sweet game and he's squandered it so methodically it's almost unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Chris Roberts lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
thatguy posted:God when you think about it Chris was literally set up for success at every turn and just pissed it away. He got the money, team, popularity, fandom, etc. needed to make a really sweet game and he's squandered it so methodically it's almost unbelievable. Yeah but what really puts the dick into the cake is knowing that this is, like, the seventh time it's happened to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
All this over a fucken video game
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:14
|
|
