|
Thoatse posted:The same reason someone thought this was a good idea 
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
I love poo poo like this...cuz the color of the hair was the issue...not that it's there in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Goobs posted:I love poo poo like this...cuz the color of the hair was the issue...not that it's there in the first place. Oh, you poor, pure, innocent soul. (It bleaches skin, not hair.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
Goobs posted:I love poo poo like this...cuz the color of the hair was the issue...not that it's there in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:I keep seeing this coming up and I don't see what the issue or confusion is. "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game" means to embed it exclusively, at the exclusion of any other engine. That's a restriction of the license. Being that Crytek is a Germany company, I wonder if there is also a German version of this GLA? (Misunderstandings in translated written documents is something that as a New Zealander, I can fully understand - our Treaty of Waitangi, founding document, has both a English and Maori version which has lead to many legal problems.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
thatguy posted:Mods are asleep, post pictures of Tide PODS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6SY0YQhRtk
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Goobs posted:I love poo poo like this...cuz the color of the hair was the issue...not that it's there in the first place. I'm actually dipping my hairless dots in a nice vat of skin lightening bleach right now, because for some reason I was cursed with the darkest taint mankind has ever known
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Kosumo posted:Being that Crytek is a Germany company, I wonder if there is also a German version of this GLA? (Misunderstandings in translated written documents is something that as a New Zealander, I can fully understand - our Treaty of Waitangi, founding document, has both a English and Maori version which has lead to many legal problems.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:I'm in LA and haven't seen what an actual unbleached normal persons rear end in a top hat looks like since high school 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
BluesShaman posted:Star Citizen: It depends upon what the meaning of the word "exclusive" is. Star Citizen: We should see other games
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:I'm in LA and haven't seen what an actual unbleached normal persons rear end in a top hat looks like since high school A SurfaceDetail parachute will be along momentarily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Makes no sense. Perhaps you meant 'Halo is being released as an XBox exclusive title' which means it excludes other platforms other than XBox. I did, but the original line still works (well, sort of because Xbox isn't the one doing the releasing, but for the purpose of the line, assume Bungie is now part of the Xbox corporation). Halo is a title exclusive to Xbox. Xbox is releasing Halo as an exclusive. Xbox is exclusively releasing Halo. I mean, I don't want to get into dictionary definitions here, but: exclusively to the exclusion of others; only. "paints produced exclusively for independent retailers" as the only source. "I can exclusively reveal that Gail shares a birthday with Rod Stewart" You can see that it swings both ways. In the second definition it's not the birthday that's exclusive, but the single source of the action. Xbox is the only source of Halo. Taking that definition and applying it to the full section, not just the subsection: "...Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only: to exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game and develop the Game which right shall be sub-licensable pursuant to Sec. 2.6" You can see that if we say the exclusivity is taking CIG as the only source to make the game with CryEngine, it has a different meaning to if CIG needs to make the game with CryEngine to the exclusion of others. The other two sections also make much more sense in this reading. Saying CIG has the license to exclusively manufacture the game makes more sense that only CIG can make the game, not that CIG can only make the game and nothing else. 2.1.1 also reads better if you say anyone, including CIG can work on improving the engine, not CIG can work on any engine they like. This is compounded by looking at the current CryEngine single user limited license agreement, which shares heavy similarities to the CIG one, and probably share a similar foundation. "2.1. Grant: Subject to strict and continuous compliance with the restrictions of this Agreement Crytek grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, limited license (the “License”) only to: 2.1.1. to install and run the CRYENGINE pursuant to the CRYENGINE Documentation; 2.1.2. to develop, maintain, extend and/or enhance CRYENGINE pursuant to the CRYENGINE Documentation; 2.1.3. to develop Games using CRYENGINE and to render such Games in object code form (including the CRYENGINE Assets and the CRYENGINE Redistributables) pursuant to the CRYENGINE documentation; 2.1.4. publish, distribute, sell, sublicense or exploit in any other way Games developed and rendered during the Subscription Period in object code form only and only under terms consistent with and no less protective of Crytek’s rights than those contained in this Agreement in perpetuity. ..." We can see that the exclusive clause is way up the front, directly referring to how exclusive the license is for the end user. It's not exclusive, because plenty of people are going to be using this license to make games. But CIG have a specific license to them and their game. It is exclusive to them. But not every part of that grant is exclusive, namely 2.1.2, the ability to develop, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine. Everyone else, from CryTek to anyone with another exclusive or non-exclusive agreement has that right. That bit isn't exclusive to CIG. So, perhaps, when they went to modify the document (or the document that the current agreement is based on, since it's much newer), they took the grants section, removed non-exclusive from 2.1, and placed it as the first qualifier for each sub-section, to make sure that the engine development was non-exclusive, but everything directly relating to Star Citizen was, including its development and production. And that's why 2.1.1 is non-exclusive, but 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 are. I will grant you that the embed CryEngine doesn't appear in the new agreement, so you could argue that bit has special meaning, but again, why isn't that in 2.2? Or stated that CIG have an exclusive right to exclusively embed Cryengine to make it clear in respect to the restructure of 2.1 as a whole? Again, I am not a lawyer. But I think it's a bit much to look at that sub-section, with its total lack of punctuation and clarifying statements, and say it can only be read one way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:I'm in LA and haven't seen what an actual unbleached normal persons rear end in a top hat looks like since high school Anal (and most other) skin color variance is usually due to pigmentation density being higher in areas with skin that has been stretched a lot. So "some reason" is usually a history of rigorously exercising the sphincter. Alternatively you just have genes for a highly pliable butthole. Sorry man, but you may have been born with an extended capacity for being a Star Citizen backer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:40
|
|
|
Is he dead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:Is he dead? Nope.  e: not the first to make this joke itt
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:
There is no second definition, the definition is exactly the same. The word is rooted in 'exclude', if you can exclusively reveal a piece of information that means that you are party to that information to the exclusion of others and can therefore exclusively reveal it. You wouldn't be able to exclusively reveal it if the information was not exclusive to you. So in your example above it is implicit that the information you are revealing is exclusive to you, meaning that all others are excluded from having it. I can unpack your example above into 'the fact that Gail shares a birthday with Rod Stewart is something hitherto known only to me', and now I have an explicit sentence and understanding and now we can have a conversation around the thing that you have exclusively shared with me. It's the same as a news organisation having an 'exclusive', they have something that no one else has yet. You can play fast and loose with this of course but when it comes to signing something I think the definition and useage is well established, well defined and well understood. I have read your full post and I do follow your reasoning and understand the argument but I don't agree with it for this reason. I do think that this exclusivity term in the license could be argued to be an unfair term but I do not expect any argument around this to come from this direction of definitions of the language used because to me it is perfectly clear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:Is he dead? Does that count?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Star Citizen: Stop feeling that way and wait until the game
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Taking the hard to argue road of "it's not pay to win because the game doesn't recognise anything you do as an quantifiable activity"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
I like how his primary objection to the P2W label is that it harms the image of the "game" (presumably lowering the uptake of suckers), not that it's false. He doesn't care about its veracity either way, that's not the important part. And for some reason we're supposed to believe this isn't a cult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Guess who backed Star Citizen. Shiiiit, I almost did too. I almost bought into this hype and I was at least going to buy the starter ship before the game would go full price. Obviously this is a lovely thing to do now, but at some point this thing showed promise. At least before Beer got excommunicated from the church of citizentology for loving trying to promote the game. I still can't believe how aggressively stupidly hostile their decisions were on straight up silencing criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Also, I remember asking this question a lot and thanks to this lawsuit I know why. I was always asking why the everloving gently caress would they use the Crytek engine, something clearly not designed for MMOs, be their choice. Wellllll, now i know that it was a legal obligation. Digging that hole, seeing Crytek go under and then try to switch to a different crytek engine licensed by Amazon makes sense. I guess they thought if it happened to mad catz (after that whole HOTAS bullshit), might as well do the same thing to crytek, why not
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
In Blacklight Retribution I spend a whole bunch of cash on decking out my character with the best guns and boosts and perks and it's not pay to win because what is winning. It's pay to play how I want to, which just happens to be ending rounds on the top of the scoreboard, but maybe some guys are roleplaying as cyberpunk wallhackers - it doesn't stop them doing that. What I'm saying is we all define "winning" a different way, even if the game explicitly defines it for us through the power structures of conflict, and I'm playing the way I want to which the developers intentionally gated behind either hours of grinding that I don't want to do, or my pay cheque that's going towards video games anyway. That doesn't make it pay to win, even though from my perspective I am winning and I have literally paid for the tools to enable me to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Fargin Icehole posted:Shiiiit, I almost did too. I almost bought into this hype and I was at least going to buy the starter ship before the game would go full price. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
lmbo "crappy dinosaur app" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVnk3yT2Lgo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:There is no second definition, the definition is exactly the same. The word is rooted in 'exclude', if you can exclusively reveal a piece of information that means that you are party to that information to the exclusion of others and can therefore exclusively reveal it. But that's not the same, because we were talking about actions before, not the actors. Actions that only you can take are different to you being only able to take one action. We both agreed before that Bob exclusively listening to pop music meant that Bob didn't listen to other music. This was the first definition, "only", so "Bob only listens to pop music". But if we use the second definition, the sentence takes a radically different meaning; "Bob is the only one who can listen to pop music". We know that isn't true, so we discount it, but it has that potential meaning. After all, if we took the birthday example, and applied the first definition, again, we get a weird result. "I can only reveal that Gail and Rob Stewart share a birthday". Not "only I can", but "I can only". I can't reveal anything else to anyone. Unless this is some sort of deduction puzzle game, we would ignore this definition and use the second. So, then it comes to CIG and exclusively embedding CryEngine. To use your words, we are now deciding between if this means "to the exclusion of other things", i.e.; they can only use CryEngine and no other engines, or "to the exclusion of others", i.e.; only they can be the ones to embed CryEngine, and no-one else (except those allowed in 2.6). Ubik_Lives fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
I think what this guy might have trouble with is that Elite: Dangerous was not intended to have the same features as Star Citizen because maybe E:D was built to be flying around in space, first and foremost. You obviously cannot see your own legs or walk around space stations because the GAME WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE THESE FEATURES Goddamn, how can these people miss that. It's the same thing as Ben Lesnick hating Freespace because it wasn't like Wing Commander. No poo poo sherlock, it's designed differently. Freespace doesn't have chewing the fat with your team mates before fighting cat monsters, no. It has you being the cog in the machine and seeing your mission objectives go horribly wrong because Volition can do visual Storytelling and do it extremely well. I played Freespace 2 when I was a kid, and I'd put that above most big time RPGs trying to weave a story. Fargin Icehole fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
Bob exclusively listening to pop music cannot be made to mean that only Bob can listen to pop music because word order matters in English and as a result "exclusively" modifies the verb, not the subject. To make it mean otherwise you would need to rearrange the words, or imply their rearrangement through commas - "Exclusively Bob listens to pop music"; "Bob, exclusively, listens to pop music".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Citizens, experts at games development and youtube lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
AND another thing. I really liked Freelancer, and I wish it had more time to be developed. Chris Roberts or not (obviously now seeing as how he barely did anything with it and got kicked out of the project mid development, and he still claims credit) Lovely how the Texas System has a prison ship called Sugarland, lovely because sugarland is known for it's prisons. NEAT! It's almost as if all these humans that packed up and left the system, unpacked everything and wanted everything to be the same. Cool! Germany declares war on the british and american systems, and the Japanese in a twist of fate, also fight the germans! This is great!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
CIG is exclusively creating Star Citizen. They are also creating lolz and victims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Ubik_Lives posted:But that's not the same, because we were talking about actions before, not the actors. Actions that only you can take are different to you being only able to take one action. No, you are completely wrong Bob is exclusively listening to pop music - "exclusively listening" 'listening' is a verb. How is Bob listening? Look at the adverb preceding the verb, he is listening exclusively. In order for it to mean that only Bob is listening to pop music you would have to write it thusly: "Bob, exclusively, is listening to pop music" You are misinterpretating basic english and then arguing that your misinterpretation is actually another definition of the same sentence. Unless of course you are completely trolling me in which case well played.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Bob exclusively listening to pop music cannot be made to mean that only Bob can listen to pop music because word order matters in English and as a result "exclusively" modifies the verb, not the subject. To make it mean otherwise you would need to rearrange the words, or imply their rearrangement through commas - "Exclusively Bob listens to pop music"; "Bob, exclusively, listens to pop music". Thank you, loving hell I'm loosing my mind over here
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Fargin Icehole posted:Also, I remember asking this question a lot and thanks to this lawsuit I know why. I was always asking why the everloving gently caress would they use the Crytek engine, something clearly not designed for MMOs, be their choice. Wellllll, now i know that it was a legal obligation. There's a bit more to it than that, because Crytek built the early tech demos that were used in the kickstarter when Chris couldn't get publishers interested in the project. I'm sure this will be covered in Bootcha's unfolding and excellent Sunk Cost Galaxy videos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Hahahaha, how sheltered are you? Besides Jamaicans, I was unaware that people bleached their assholes. But, now that you've enlightened me (probably due to you using it to bleach your balls, anus and eyes), I thank you. Oh wise Anus Bleacher. I bow before you humbly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
It's totally irrelevant to debate some kind of strict grammatical interpretation of how the exclusivity clause should be read (you are all wrong, by the way). If this is going to be a jury trial, the contract is going to have to be argued in front of a bunch of laymen. Unless every single one of them is a pedantic grammar teacher, their initial interpretations are probably going to vary as widely as the interpretations itt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 08:17
|
|
