Xaerael posted:

Lox, you literally got your companies wrong :p CASE DISMISSED

Malachite_Dragon posted:

So, they're basically doubling down on the "WRONG COMPANY THEREFORE DISMISS" defense, yeah?

Loxbourne posted:

For those who don't want to read it, it can be summarised as follows:

1. CryTek are MEANIES and BAD and WRONG and CIG are LAUGHING AT HOW WRONG CRYREKT ARE.

2. It doesn't matter anyway because the disclaimer at clause 6.1.4 precludes all claims for damages.

3. CryTek are claiming punitive remedies that don't exist (this is a point I'd be interested to see a specialist lawgoon comment on, actually. This is something we can look up).

4. CryTek's definition of "exclusive" can't be right because it would produce absurdities.

5. Ortwin is the BEST LAWYER EVER and CryTek are IMPERTINENT and SCANDALOUS (sic) for saying such nasty things about him and...the other bloke whose name they can't even be bothered to remember.

This is all in the same confrontational and belligerent style as last time, and finishes with a lengthy "no u!"

As before I am a lawgoon but not an American IP and contractual lawgoon, so I will refrain from commenting on the merits and repeat what I said last time. It's written like a smarmy Freeper's manifesto and peppered with statements that CryTek "fails" and "cannot even" and is "so very wrong". The backers will eat it up.

Mirificus posted:

https://twitter.com/listening2day/status/956983520282386432

Loxbourne posted:

The backers will eat it up.

tuo posted:

Lol, they actually only fixed it at one place...the other forms - which don't handle passwords though, just reset request and two-factor authentication, still have the flaw:

CrazyTolradi posted:

I'm getting the distinct impression that CIG will settle over Ortwin's (un)dead body.

Dark Off posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHY-ODm51QU.
And obviously the dreams are still dreams, but hey at least the thing exists in the verse.

quote:

See Frittelli, Inc. v. 350 N. Canon Drive, LP, 202 Cal. App. 4th 35, 43 (2011) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1668). That is precisely what the parties agreed to here.

In exchange for a significant buyout license fee (almost €2 million), Crytek agreed to limit CIG’s exposure to the maximum extent allowable by law: to damages caused only by “intentional acts or omissions or gross negligence.” GLA § 6.1.4. This provision is valid and enforceable under California law. In Frittelli, a shopping center tenant sued its landlord for, inter alia, negligence and breach of the lease’s express covenant of quiet enjoyment, alleging that the landlord’s renovations to the shopping center completely destroyed the tenant’s donut business.

See Frittelli, 202 Cal. App. 4th at 40-42. The lease provided that “the lessor had no liability under ‘any circumstances’ for breaches of the lease and negligence for damages or injury arising from ‘any . . . cause’ in the areas of the shopping center outside the leased premises or for injuries to the lessee’s business.”
Id. at 45.Based on this provision and the longstanding right of parties in California to limit their liability for breaches of contract and negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landlord and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that “the parties’ intent, as expressed in the agreement, was to exempt the lessor from liability for breach of the lease and ordinary negligence.”

The court further held that the conduct the tenant attributed to the landlord, though characterized as gross negligence, did not rise to that level based on the facts pleaded in the complaint and affirmed the dismissal of that claim as well.
at 52-53. Just like the parties in Frittelli, the intent of Crytek and CIG, as expressed in Section 6.1.4 of the GLA, was to exempt the parties from liability for breaches of the GLA and ordinary negligence, while preserving the parties’ rights to seek damages in the event of intentional torts or gross negligence. GLA § 6.1.4.

And just like the tenant in Fritelli, whose claim for gross negligence was dismissed because the facts pleaded in its complaint did not meet the high standard for that cause of action, Crytek has failed to plead
any facts in the FAC to show that Crytek’s ordinary claim for breach of contract constitutes “an intentional act or omission or gross negligence” that allows the claim to fall outside the damages exemption of Section 6.1.4. Accordingly, Crytek’s claim for breach of contract should be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

Gravity_Storm posted:

I lold when they started the doughnut story.

quote:

Crytek argues that “[e]ven if the Court determines that Defendants were permitted to switch engines and did in fact do so, Defendants’ argument fails to account for the full year of infringing conduct between Defendants’ announcement of the separate, standalone Squadron 42 on December 16, 2015, and Defendants’ eventual engine switch on December 23, 2016.”

However, this argument fails because, as of December 23, 2016, Squadron 42 was still in development and had not yet been released — a fact admitted by Crytek and contained in the incorporated 2016 Press Release.

See Crytek’s claim that the alleged spinoff of Squadron 42 violates the GLA is a clause in Exhibit 2 to the GLA stating that “the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client.” GLA at 18 (emphasis added). To exceed the scope of the license pursuant to this provision, not only must Squadron 42 be “sold and marketed separately,” it also must be “accessed through the Star Citizen Game client.”

As of December 23, 2016, Squadron 42 was not “being accessed” at all, either “through” or outside “the Star Citizen Game client.” Accordingly, Crytek’s claim that Defendants breached the GLA (or engaged in copyright infringement) merely by announcing that Squadron 42 would be sold as a standalone game fails as a matter of law.

SomethingJones posted:

Reverse The Verse Jan 26 2018
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/222623015?t=32m11s

@32:11

Chris Roberts:
YEAH on the VR FRONT, um, you know, the game's very much built to be VR FRIENDLY because, you know... like al-um... almost all the UI is DIAGETIC and the stuff that isn't we're putting more into being DIAGETIC and we wanna improve the whole DIAGETIC FEEL... ah... so... ahh... you know... our biggest HOLDBACK on the VR is really just we're still doing so much base level REFACTORING and the ENGINE and the RENDERER will, you know, be starting on you know, the X... the VULKAN, the X12 kinda REFACTOR as well, a-and we're doing so much OPTIMISATION that we sorta feel like, 'we've gotta get that done... FIRST', and... get the base level engine stuff more like FINISHED, not constantly working REFACTORING

And then we'll... we'll PUT VR...

Cos we had actual, you know, VR support quite a while ago but again as we CHANGE stuff it BREAKS and then your engine team, you go, 'are they gonna go fix the VR stuff? Are they writing that new... that new... you know like the PROCEDURAL PLANETS that EVERYBODY can experience', and... so that's always been... that's kind of what's happened in those situations

But once all that stabilises of course we're gonna go and get that supported and when we're building things, you know, we're aware of like I said the DI... putting everything in the world itself, ah... which is quite friendly for VR or... you know... and moving your head around and TRACKING the same thing it's like... we track... ah... your HEADLOOK and actually, you know, I... I'd thought that we'd turned it on in 3.0 but it will be something that you can disconnect your LOOK from your AIM... as a PLAYER... ah, you know the AI can already do that...

Cos that's also something that's potentially useful where you're... you know... you're a CERTAIN way, you don't have to look around to like move your gun to look at it



‘Star Citizen’ to Refocus on VR Support in Early 2016
https://www.roadtovr.com/star-citizen-to-refocus-on-vr-support-in-early-2016/

Chris Roberts:
The status of VR integration is that we’ve been pretty busy with getting [Alpha] 2.0 [out] and we’re trying to get 2.1 so I would say we still have some stuff to integrate from the most recent CryEngine drops. They’ve been actually doing quite a lot of VR, I’m pretty sure you guys have noticed that they’ve completely doubled down and they’re all VR now.

So there are some updates on VR that we need to integrate in. It’s a little more complicated because we’ve changed the engine so much, we’ve changed the rendering pipeline to enable us to do a lot of things that we need to do so it’s not very easy. Nowadays we’ve diverged from CryEngine where we don’t take regular updates from them any more although we will cherry pick certain features that maybe we’re not working on that we think would help out well and VR is a good example of that.

So it’s really just a matter of getting some engineering time in the Frankfurt team. The Frankfurt team… [includes many of] the guys that originally did the VR work at Crytek so they know it pretty well but I would be expecting it to get up to speed with the most recent [VR] stuff sometime early next year.



TL;DR:

2016:
Frankfurt team will be up to speed on VR integration after we integrate new CryEngine updates into the base engine.

2018
We'll put in VR after we integrate Vulkan and X12 refactors into the base engine.

Baxta posted:

Ah the doughnut defense. A risky move, lets see how it plays out.

AP posted:

https://twitter.com/richard_kyanka/status/957063995197927424

Malachite_Dragon posted:

So, they're basically doubling down on the "WRONG COMPANY THEREFORE DISMISS" defense, yeah?

Daztek posted:

Document: https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162

AP posted:

https://twitter.com/richard_kyanka/status/957063995197927424

Baxta posted:

Ah the doughnut defense. A risky move, lets see how it plays out.

AP posted:

https://twitter.com/richard_kyanka/status/957063995197927424

Baxta posted:

Doughnut law

tuo posted:

It punches above its width

thatguy posted:

Calling it now Citizens will see this as another crushing blow because they assume that a judge wants to see a bunch of brutal takedowns while reading a legal document like they do.

Sillybones posted:

Pro-Click. Space Madness within.

Beet Wagon posted: