|
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. Go fish https://i.imgur.com/RibejN0.gifv
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
nnnotime posted:Perhaps a dumb question, but since Lumberyard contains a lot of Crytek code, does that mean CIG is still technically using the Crytek engine code, even though CIG is assuming it's under the terms of a Lumberyard GLA? Everything Amazon has done seems fine so far, so it appears they can just watch from the sidelines. Given that there were no royalties under the CIG-Crytek agreement, I have no idea why CIG didn't just continue displaying the splash screen or whatever. It seems like it would have been relatively painless to keep complying with the CIG-Crytek agreement. So maybe they hated each other behind the scenes, and didn't out of spite. And yes, it would have been a lot easier if they'd included a clause like that in the Amazon-Crytek agreement, and Crytek might have screwed themselves not having it, but apparently no one thought of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Dusty Lens posted:Yeah but what really puts the dick into the cake is knowing that this is, like, the seventh time it's happened to him. points for being consistent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:All this over a fucken video game OBJECTION! Assumes facts not in evidence! Refer to the empty Star Citizen collector's edition tin marked exhibit D, and show me this so-called "video game."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
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. Chris Roberts, snatching failure from the jaws of success since 1999
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
AngusPodgorny posted:I think Lumberyard has code copyrighted by Crytek, but that Amazon has a license that lets it freely sublicense the code. So CIG is still using Cryengine code; it just gets it through a different license. The real question is whether CIG has to publicize the fact that it originated at Crytek. It appears that Amazon's agreement with Crytek doesn't include any requirement that sublicensees publicly acknowledge Crytek. Is it possible the Lumberyard agreement forbids advertising competing products or engines in situations where Amazon can furnish the product?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Cultists take headline development to the next level.quote:"CIG loving shreks all of Cryteks claims in suit." https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7om9to/man_i_really_appreciate_all_of_those_news_sites/
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
kilus aof posted:Cultists take headline development to the next level. This is where that Jackie Chan meme really shines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:All this over a fucken video game It looks that way, but remember that the video game "development company" (which has never shipped a game, and is run by a husband/wife team, one of which has zero experience in this or any other related industry, and the other who isn't actually a modern game developer and has failed repeatedly when he attempted it before) is basically just the cover story. "Operation: Star Citizen" hasn't been about making a game for a long time now, if it ever was. They're not going to court because they're scared for a video game - they're going to court because they've stolen over $175 million and they aim to keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Ok, so here's my take on the matter. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever. There's 5 things being claimed here. 1. CIG created two games when they were limited to one. Take: This one might get tossed depending if CIG can convince the jury that SC and SQ42 are NOT two games. 2. CIG was to only use the Crytek engine. Take: This is entirely dependent on the interpretation of the language of the GLA (which isn't entirely clear), and if it can be successfully argued or not that Lumberyard is CryEngine. 3. CIG was to use CryEngine branding on the first loading screens. Take: This one is largely open and shut. CIG did not. 4. CIG was to send bugfixes to Crytek. Take: Again, largely open and shut, with Crytek a paper trail of CIG not returning code on request. The burden is on CIG to disprove this one. 5. CIG was to keep code secret. Take: This is largely open and shut, though I expect CIG to say that the code is on github at some point. So that's 2.5 dunks, .5 "eh" (copyright stuff), and 2 potential hard things for Crytek.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
IncredibleIgloo posted:Is it possible the Lumberyard agreement forbids advertising competing products or engines in situations where Amazon can furnish the product?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
iospace posted:Ok, so here's my take on the matter. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever. There's 5 things being claimed here. Well they are taking British tax credits on the fact Squadron 42 is a distinct game from Star Citizen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
kilus aof posted:Well they are taking British tax credits on the fact Squadron 42 is a distinct game from Star Citizen. Alright, then that's definitely a big point in Crytek's favor. Move it to slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:It looks that way, but remember that the video game "development company" (which has never shipped a game, and is run by a husband/wife team, one of which has zero experience in this or any other related industry, and the other who isn't actually a modern game developer and has failed repeatedly when he attempted it before) is basically just the cover story. "Operation: Star Citizen" hasn't been about making a game for a long time now, if it ever was. They're not going to court because they're scared for a video game - they're going to court because they've stolen over $175 million and they aim to keep doing it. Regarding a post you made earlier, are you implying another shoe will likely drop before Feb 8?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
squardon 42 is just a game mode. Chris gets really annoyed when lawyers start asking him about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Solarin posted:squardon 42 is just a game mode. Chris gets really annoyed when lawyers start asking him about it I can't wait until that becomes a serious defense also when Chris complains that nobody sends him gifts anymore
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Abuminable posted:Regarding a post you made earlier, are you implying another shoe will likely drop before Feb 8? In a perfectly quiet month, CIG fucks up a near limitless number of times. With the obvious financial pressure they're under (indicated by the incredibly transparent cash-grab throughout December - land, tanks, etc.), the disastrous 3.0 release that proves they weren't actually building the game up, but rather doubling-down on faulty code to keep pledges rolling, lying about the funding tracker, the complete loss of the narrative indicated by a sea change in media and general opinion turning against the project; all that poo poo going on, and a payday loan on top. That's a fuckload of pressure, which will multiply the rate at which CIG makes unforced errors. Now toss in a lawsuit, that, even if entirely without merit, is going to force the moron in charge of CIG into making even more spectacular mistakes and bad calls. It will decrease morale across the company, keep the media focused on the part of Star Citizen the Crobbler least wants discussed, further stoke the poo poo furnace that is the Star Citizen community, turning it even more toxic and preventing new interest from taking hold, and destroy relationships inside and outside CIG. If the suit prompts discovery, it will be even more spectacular. In this climate, and knowing CIG's history, what are the chances we make it an entire month with no humor scraps to feed on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Spent most of the night reading the GLA, skimming the thread and reading Derek's stuff here - https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html I have to throw my hands up and say that imo Derek is right on all points: 1. There is no argument that it's an exclusive license. Whether that is determined to be unfair or unenforceable is entirely up to space court. However the money that CIG agreed to pay Crytek is based on the license terms and that's a pretty substantial one - without exclusivity the license fee would have been much, much higher. In other words, "use our engine and no one else's and we'll give you a great deal" 2. SQ42 is defined as a feature of SC. The license does not allow CIG to sell SQ42 as a separate game which they did. There's no getting around that. 3. Amendment to Section 2.1 allows modification to the engine by third parties (not exclusively CIG) as long as it's for the development of SC, ie "being exclusive only with respect to the game". Essentially meaning that third party contractors can modify Cry code without being in breach of the license. I only mention this one as I've seen discussion around it. 4. A press release does not release CIG from the terms of the GLA. I am absolutely dumbfounded that this is CIG's response and that they filed it into a court. Absolutely dumbfounded. There is nothing in the GLA that releases CIG from that contract and CIG have not filed anything to show they negotiated a change to the GLA or had it terminated. 7. If Cryengine had been modified so much that it was considered by CIG to be 'StarEngine', tough titties, Crytek own all those modifications and are free to fold them back into Cry. 8. Switching engine to Lumbaryard is a black and white breach of the contract unless the exclusivity of the GLA is determined to be unfair - HOWEVER! If there was a case to be made for it being unfair CIG could have released themselves from the GLA on that basis before the engine switch. They didn't. Derek is also pointing out that Crytek selling CIG the royalty license meant that they missed out on a percentage of the $180 million in fundraising, but that's how the royalty game rolls Derek you should know that  I'm not getting where people are coming from when they are saying the GLA is poorly written or open to interpretation, to me it's clear and explicit and the amendments are clear and explicit. If anything wasn't clear and explicit it would be amended and edited until it was and then it gets signed. The license that CIG have for Cryengine is for the development of Star Citizen and nothing else, and if they switch engine they are in breach of the contract on its face. If they want to go down that road and argue that this is an unfair term then: 1. It is a CRITICAL term for valuing the $ amount of the license 2. CIG were free to have it amended at any time in the last 5 years and pony up a space dollah amount to Crytek 3. They went ahead and switched engine and put out a press release saying so WITHOUT a legal determination on the unfairness of this term or anything in writing to Crytek saying it was unfair - because if they did it would be part of their filing right now If you cannot see how loving totally ludicrous this motion to dismiss is then you simply don't comprehend the english language and I don't know what to tell you. It will actually be torn up on day one. I'm leaning toward Loxbourne's opinion of this being a complete PR move by CIG to keep the shitizens happy being correct. If CIG don't settle this madness 5 minutes before this goes into space court it means that they simply do not have the money to do so because they have gently caress all else to make a case out of here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
iospace posted:
The language is clear, and switching to lumberyard is a breach of the contract at face value. It could be argued that this is an unfair term but given that the $ value of the license is calculated from the terms of the license and this is a pretty major term I doubt that'll get far (imo). The closest thing I could think of is Propellerhead giving Deadmau5 a supercool brand new version of Reason to make an album, and in the license it says that Deadmau5 has to use this software to make his album and nothing else. And then halfway through the album Deadmau5 decides to use an old version of Fruityloops. These kinds of exclusive licenses exist all over the place, it's all about branding and marketing - Deadmau5 puts out a killer album and now everyone wants to buy the software he used for example. To me that exclusivity term in the Crytek GLA is perfectly clear and not in any way unusual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:I'm leaning toward Loxbourne's opinion of this being a complete PR move by CIG to keep the shitizens happy being correct. Given the response on reddit I'd say it worked beautifully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Spent most of the night reading the GLA, skimming the thread and reading Derek's stuff here - https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html My theory, which my wife also shares, is that the entire thing is a delay while they prepare to scuttle the company. This upcoming paid "tour" might be an alternate way of doing that - give your Amway pitch of newly created shares to the most gullible of backers, then dip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
D_Smart posted: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. Skadden wouldn't be using the word 'intentionally' unless they had evidence to show that in each case it was in fact intentional. Given that there's enough stuff in the public domain to show this I'm sure they have it covered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:Given the response on reddit I'd say it worked beautifully. The reddit sub is just all cheap shills and has been for months. The whole arse has dropped out of this scam now and Crytek are moving to get their payday out of it asap just like the grey marketeers are trying to offload all their poo poo on ebay. The reddit sub is entirely, wholly and 100% completely and loving utterly irrelevant and those guys over there know it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
The Reddit cry of "Well you see CryTek didn't uphold their side!" is all well and good but that isn't being disputed in the case here. If CryTek weren't upholding their end of the GLA, why didn't CIG then file a suit over that? Just because one side isn't fulfilling their end of a contract, it doesn't give you free reign to just go ignoring your obligations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Spent most of the night reading the GLA, skimming the thread and reading Derek's stuff here - https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:My theory, which my wife also shares, is that the entire thing is a delay while they prepare to scuttle the company. This upcoming paid "tour" might be an alternate way of doing that - give your Amway pitch of newly created shares to the most gullible of backers, then dip. I suspect there might be the odd CIG employee who would share that theory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
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. This is why Derek has been shouting a lot about someone going to jail over this, which as fully hyperbolic as that sounds does indicate that there's something we don't know about yet. I'm not jumping on that wagon just yet, but there's something more to this because let's face it there's always something more
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
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. If somebody's computer explodes after installing Star Citizen and their bitcoin farm goes up and takes out a half a city block Crytek are only liable for the amount that they sold the Star Citizen license for. That's all that's about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:My theory, which my wife also shares, is that the entire thing is a delay while they prepare to scuttle the company. This upcoming paid "tour" might be an alternate way of doing that - give your Amway pitch of newly created shares to the most gullible of backers, then dip. I mean, why stop at just buying JPGs? why not actually own a piece of gaming history and become a member of the Star Citizen / Squadron 42 team? I mean, like, no, not a real job here because then you'd wanna loving kill yourself, but how about giving us even more money for not even spaceship jpgs and instead the DREAM of making Chris Roberts ascend into the heavens as PC gaming one and only savior like let's just drop that you actually care about spaceships or a game at this point, let chris roberts's wavey hands hypnotize the gently caress outta your pocketbook by just saying poo poo like "we're the only gaming company in the world with the balls to do what we do" and "nothing, nothing like this has ever been attempted. wouldn't have YOU wanted to be the first person in orbit or to walk on the moon??" and have them all on nice neat powerpoint slides as you feed people some semi decent foods and ply them with cheap but expensive looking champagne then holy poo poo, the dream is dead, gone, everyone is getting sued and didn't you read that in your contract you're actually loving liable for some of this poo poo, oh gently caress, whoops, forgot to mention that, enjoy four different legal teams crawling inside your rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:So again MoMA was wrong when he implied that Derek was just telling who he thought the defense would be, when in fact he knew for some time. MoMA posts are intended for backers reading the thread as damage control and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:four different legal teams crawling inside your rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:My theory, which my wife also shares, is that the entire thing is a delay while they prepare to scuttle the company. This upcoming paid "tour" might be an alternate way of doing that - give your Amway pitch of newly created shares to the most gullible of backers, then dip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
Fyi any non-lawyer careposting in-depth analysis of these legal statements is just as retarded as the citizens and should be ashamed of themselves Hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
Ayn Marx posted:Fyi any non-lawyer careposting in-depth analysis of these legal statements is just as retarded as the citizens and should be ashamed of themselves I'm glad your family is dead
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:they're going to get a bunch of big bux idiots to pay $350 for the privilege of being able to buy more stuff, directly at a dinner with chris roberts's sales pitch  (He's jittering because he's about to fall through the floor) Crazypoops fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
*five seconds later*
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Ayn Marx posted:Fyi any non-lawyer careposting in-depth analysis of these legal statements is just as retarded as the citizens and should be ashamed of themselves Fyi non-lawyers read, write and sign legal agreements every single day of the last hundreds of years, it's called doing business
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
Crazypoops posted:
I'm sorry I can't do that Dave. You know the doors have never worked, dickhead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Open the bay door HAL. It's OK HAL, I'll just clip out through the wall here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
boviscopophobic posted:It's OK HAL, I'll just clip out through the wall here. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 07:20
|
|