Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

rodarin

If nothing comes from this but someone looking into the financials over there that will be enough.

Hopefully its in the US then it will also be subject to the FOI Act.

Then everyone will be able to see how much has really been raised and where it has actually gone.

Kefo

Crytek is going to rake CIG over the coals with this. 

I wonder how much they will be awarded(if any) and I'm sure the lawyers will have fun going through CIG's financials in order to determine how much they actually owe Crytek lol.

laserit

Rhoklaw said:

Honestly, getting a hold of RSI / CiG finances is good enough for me. I could care less about the outcome of this lawsuit. 

Couldn't argue with that.

Crowdfunded projects should have to make their books just as accessible as a public traded company.

Tiamat64

laserit said:

Rhoklaw said:

Honestly, getting a hold of RSI / CiG finances is good enough for me. I could care less about the outcome of this lawsuit. 

Couldn't argue with that.

Crowdfunded projects should have to make their books just as accessible as a public traded company.

I am concurring once again for emphasis.  People say they're the most transparent development ever but then where are the financials?  Which, by the way, are probably one of the most important things of all when it comes to developing a big game because once you're out of money, you're DONE.

SpottyGekko

Kefo said:

Crytek is going to rake CIG over the coals with this. 

I wonder how much they will be awarded(if any) and I'm sure the lawyers will have fun going through CIG's financials in order to determine how much they actually owe Crytek lol.

That could well be a cornerstone of Crytek's lawsuit.

They could be betting on the fact that CIG don't want their financials picked-over in open court, so the chances of an out-of-court settlement could be good here, regardless of the merits of Crytek's claims...

sgel

Rhoklaw said:

Honestly, getting a hold of RSI / CiG finances is good enough for me. I could care less about the outcome of this lawsuit. 

This.
Will be interesting to see how rich or poor (if that's even possible with so much cash gained) CIG actually is.

Couldn't give a damn who wins the lawsuit.. both companies are shady as hell.

SirLorn

Wizardry said:

It sounds to me like SC is just ignoring their leeching of Crytek and doing whatever they please knowing their are terms and agreements to adhere to.
Sp Crytke is like who whoa wait one minute,your not using us to promote your game for free and making spin offs ,sub games off the same agreement.

Imo the SC team would have fully known they are operating illegally and imo are ,so now it comes down to proving negligence,terms and money owed if any.

Also mentioned is a former player is in the news because his 24k refund has not been completed nor the legal fees he incurred taking on CIG for the refund.

Personally i did quite a bit of research and no developer has to give anyone's money back if they don't want to unless of course you can prove misleading information or a form of deceptive marketing practice.CIG did  pay some ,so i to me it pretty much says CIG is operating under very shotty terms/practices to the point of operating illegal,otherwise they don't have to refund any money.

  Did you use your "Wizardry" to come up with this?!  No one is operating illegally, as you put it.  This is about salt, and someone screwing up with an asset that technically wasn't theirs to modify, was used probably once, in some marketing.   I would imagine when the decision to switch to Lumberyard occurred, they had to consult their lawyers.  I would also imagine that even Amazon, as well as RSI / CIG, just saw Crytek 'exploding in a burst of light"  

  This not happening, caused the salt, and the 'evidence' which I am sure they didn't just spot right away, is the cotter pin even allowing them to file the complaints.    It's simple, the decision to switch to LY was a smart move, hell the ONLY move really, or face allocating more resources to try and add these features to Star Engine (continue developing said features) because it looked like Crytek was on their 3rd count of a 3 count drowning scene.    

  That being said, screw Crytek for going for the jugular on this, if the situations were reversed, they would have done the same damn thing.    Instead they should be focusing on getting their direction in a forward motion, for the longevity of their almost drowned arses.   

sgel

They downsized and got half a bil in funding.
They're making a game which actually looks quite interesting.

Wouldn't say they were drowning as such.

Kyleran

SpottyGekko said:

Crytek probably need money... they've not been doing too well these last few years iirc...

Of course it's about the money.  When this first started SC was a single player game being made for small change and hoped for large post launch sales of which I'm sure Crytek would receive substantial revenues.

So they likely received little money up front,  and a "launch" date is no where in sight so again, likely have yet to receive any additional revenue.

Meanwhile Chris has generated far more cash in additional funding to "build" the game than some folks expected the original to generate in post launch sales, yet still Crytek sees none of this.

There's $173M on the table which could easily go over $200M in the next year, yet Crytek will likely get none until the "game " (which one?) launches.

So yeah, it's mostly about the money, and Crytek is looking for far more than $75K.

I'd guess they'll seek lost revenue and punitive damages in the $10M to $20M range based on current monies generated.

Will they get it? Depends on the courts at this point.

gervaise1

More thought - as I said in an early post pretty sure the switch to Lumberyard. Forget the fluff nothing has launched yet this is all about "future revenue".



Typical scenario: developer selects engine; signs licencing deal; pays for engine whilst using it; further monies to game engine company (royalties) when (if!) game releases using said engine.

****
Less common scenario: developer selects engine; signs deal, pays whilst using it. SWITCHES to another engine. Not common but it happens.

The "assets" created will be a mixture or e.g. artwork (not part of the engine) + in some cases calls made to the game engine.

Switching to a new engine results in work to change the calls, maybe reformat data, redo stuff in a different way if the design of the asset is the result of some "unique" game engine feature. A job of work essentially to "scrub" the old engine. So that when the game releases it uses the new engine and royalties are only paid to the new (often inhouse) engine. 

*****
What we might have here .........

RSI started out with Crytek and CryEngine - see typical scenario.

RSI have changed engines. They are now using Amazon's Lumberyard. So invoke less common scenario.

In this case though the scrub took .... a couple of days or so. The reason being, of course, that Amazon licenced the same chunk of CryEngine. 

*******

I think RSI will argue that they paid Crytek for using their engine to develop (some) stuff. Have not used Crytek CryEngine since switch. All asset created prior to switch were fully converted and no longer use Crytek CryEngine. When the game is released they will make use of Lumberyard for which RSI will pay Amazon. (Who - of course - have paid Crytek).

Crytek I think are arguing that any stuff developed prior to the switch to Lumberyard still make use of CryEngine calls etc. So will still make use of CryEngine post release and so therefore Crytek should be paid.

Kyleran

gervaise1 said:

More thought - as I said in an early post pretty sure the switch to Lumberyard. Forget the fluff nothing has launched yet this is all about "future revenue".



Typical scenario: developer selects engine; signs licencing deal; pays for engine whilst using it; further monies to game engine company (royalties) when (if!) game releases using said engine.

****
Less common scenario: developer selects engine; signs deal, pays whilst using it. SWITCHES to another engine. Not common but it happens.

The "assets" created will be a mixture or e.g. artwork (not part of the engine) + in some cases calls made to the game engine.

Switching to a new engine results in work to change the calls, maybe reformat data, redo stuff in a different way if the design of the asset is the result of some "unique" game engine feature. A job of work essentially to "scrub" the old engine. So that when the game releases it uses the new engine and royalties are only paid to the new (often inhouse) engine. 

*****
What we might have here .........

RSI started out with Crytek and CryEngine - see typical scenario.

RSI have changed engines. They are now using Amazon's Lumberyard. So invoke less common scenario.

In this case though the scrub took .... a couple of days or so. The reason being, of course, that Amazon licenced the same chunk of CryEngine. 

*******

I think RSI will argue that they paid Crytek for using their engine to develop (some) stuff. Have not used Crytek CryEngine since switch. All asset created prior to switch were fully converted and no longer use Crytek CryEngine. When the game is released they will make use of Lumberyard for which RSI will pay Amazon. (Who - of course - have paid Crytek).

Crytek I think are arguing that any stuff developed prior to the switch to Lumberyard still make use of CryEngine calls etc. So will still make use of CryEngine post release and so therefore Crytek should be paid.

It appears from the complaint Crytek believes their engine is still being used today, and perhaps with the lumberyard switch over it would appear that way. 

But they also claim it was a breach of contract to change engines, as stated here in the court documents

"Defendants Broke Its Promise to Exclusively Use CryEngine for the Game

36. Section 2.1.2 of the GLA contained a critical promise from Defendantsthat they would not develop the Star Citizen video game using any other video gameengines.37.

 

Section 2.1.2 of the GLA states that Defendants have a license only to"exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game."38.

 

On December 23, 2016, Defendants announced that they were using theAmazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen. The GLA did not permitDefendants to use any other video game engine in Star Citizen except for CryEngine.39.

 

Crytek has been damaged by Defendants' breach of Section 2.1.2 of theGLA, including for the reason that Crytek has failed to receive the benefit of thefavorable attention that it otherwise would have derived from Defendants' use ofCryEngine in Star Citizen.

Case 2:17-cv-08937-DMG-FFM Document 1 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:8

beebop500

Well, if CIG were to lose this suit and have to pay out X millions of dollars or whatever, we all know what will come afterward:  another "ship" or "land" sale to recoup lost funds!  According to some of their backers, that's supposed to show the "genius" of Roberts lmaoooooo

Tiamat64

According to people who use Lumberyard, whatever CiG is using in their bugsmasher videos is either not Lumberyard (it even has a Crytek engine error message, which Lumberyard allegedly doesn't) or some custom combination of the two engines.  If it's the latter, that would explain why Crytek can claim CiG breached the switching clause while also continuing to use Crytek's engine.

gervaise1

@Kyleran Yeah I saw that. Crytek are basically saying either you are still using our engine - so we get paid more when you publish - or you have changed engines and you are not allowed to.

Such GLAs are common - in all engines and lots of software even (leading to EU anti-competition investigations etc.) We know - however - that games have changed engines. Other words prevail basically. Could "other words" be at play here? 

First lets assume that Amazon didn't ask RSI whether there was anything to stop RSI entering into a contract with Amazon. 

RSI knew - on day 1 - that the Crytek engine alone would not be sufficient to create SC. They knew that they would need to develop "bespoke" engine code. By definition that bespoke code is not Crytek code ..... ergo it would be in breach of the standard Crytek GLA ..... unless there are more words.

So I suspect that there are more words. Especially as CR's business partner is Ortwin Schneider-Freyermuth; degree in law, masters in copyright law and distribution etc. etc. 

But it could be interesting.

Say - for example - there are words that say "SC can use bespoke non-Crytek code" could / would Lumberyard count as "bespoke"?

Would Lumberyard count as Crytek for the purposes of "exclusively using Crytek" - rather than Unity for example. As above bespoke is not Crytek so in what context is the term "exclusive" used?

Popcorn needed!

Rosenborg

Tiamat64 said:

According to people who use Lumberyard, whatever CiG is using in their bugsmasher videos is either not Lumberyard (it even has a Crytek engine error message, which Lumberyard allegedly doesn't) or some custom combination of the two engines.  If it's the latter, that would explain why Crytek can claim CiG breached the switching clause while also continuing to use Crytek's engine.

I'd say it's a combination of two, or three engines actually.

CryEngine -> Star Engine ->Lumberyard

Seems they integrated Lumberyard code into Star Engine, instead of integrating Star Engine code into Lumberyard.

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Engine

gervaise1

Rosenborg said:

Tiamat64 said:

According to people who use Lumberyard, whatever CiG is using in their bugsmasher videos is either not Lumberyard (it even has a Crytek engine error message, which Lumberyard allegedly doesn't) or some custom combination of the two engines.  If it's the latter, that would explain why Crytek can claim CiG breached the switching clause while also continuing to use Crytek's engine.

I'd say it's a combination of two, or three engines actually.

CryEngine -> Star Engine ->Lumberyard

Seems they integrated Lumberyard code into Star Engine, instead of integrating Star Engine code into Lumberyard.

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Engine

They won't integrate the RSI bespoke stuff though.

There is also the possibility of which version of Lumberyard is being used in the 3.0 branch - which was frozen a while back. Some of the more recent Lumberyard changes have concentrated on error trapping etc. As and when Crytek logos were removed however - no idea. Lumberyard development seems to be powering ahead.

Vrika

gervaise1 said:

@Kyleran Yeah I saw that. Crytek are basically saying either you are still using our engine - so we get paid more when you publish - or you have changed engines and you are not allowed to.

Such GLAs are common - in all engines and lots of software even (leading to EU anti-competition investigations etc.) We know - however - that games have changed engines. Other words prevail basically. Could "other words" be at play here? 

First lets assume that Amazon didn't ask RSI whether there was anything to stop RSI entering into a contract with Amazon. 

RSI knew - on day 1 - that the Crytek engine alone would not be sufficient to create SC. They knew that they would need to develop "bespoke" engine code. By definition that bespoke code is not Crytek code ..... ergo it would be in breach of the standard Crytek GLA ..... unless there are more words.

So I suspect that there are more words. Especially as CR's business partner is Ortwin Schneider-Freyermuth; degree in law, masters in copyright law and distribution etc. etc. 

But it could be interesting.

Say - for example - there are words that say "SC can use bespoke non-Crytek code" could / would Lumberyard count as "bespoke"?

Would Lumberyard count as Crytek for the purposes of "exclusively using Crytek" - rather than Unity for example. As above bespoke is not Crytek so in what context is the term "exclusive" used?

Popcorn needed!

You're making something simple more complex than it needs to be: RSI has the right to edit the game engine as much as they wish, but they don't have right to use another game engine.

Term "exclusive" probably means only game engines - as long as they are using no other game engine besides CryEngine it's okay.

MaxBacon

Copyright lawyer stream on this, very insightful info.

So the end of the day he says it doesn't feel like the strongest copyright case, but it shows in points breaches of contract with them are possible on the points the complaint most insists. However, this still is just one side of a story and there's still their side to be heard.

He also mentions from reading and seeing the partnership of CIG and Amazon that now have a contract that is core to the engine of SC, that Amazon could get involved in both CIGs defense being SC the biggest title under their engine for starters and the ramifications this has because the dispute touching something they contractually "own", or just for the sake of profiting from it as well.

Of course, this could also just for the sake of threatening and push for a quiet settlement and we will never hear about it again if that happens, just that the case got dismissed or so. But nothing is clear at this stage.

Rosenborg

gervaise1 said:

Rosenborg said:

Tiamat64 said:

According to people who use Lumberyard, whatever CiG is using in their bugsmasher videos is either not Lumberyard (it even has a Crytek engine error message, which Lumberyard allegedly doesn't) or some custom combination of the two engines.  If it's the latter, that would explain why Crytek can claim CiG breached the switching clause while also continuing to use Crytek's engine.

I'd say it's a combination of two, or three engines actually.

CryEngine -> Star Engine ->Lumberyard

Seems they integrated Lumberyard code into Star Engine, instead of integrating Star Engine code into Lumberyard.

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Engine

They won't integrate the RSI bespoke stuff though.

There is also the possibility of which version of Lumberyard is being used in the 3.0 branch - which was frozen a while back. Some of the more recent Lumberyard changes have concentrated on error trapping etc. As and when Crytek logos were removed however - no idea. Lumberyard development seems to be powering ahead.

I think Crytek logos were removed with the release of Alpha 2.6, when they switched to Lumberyard.

Strange but interesting case this is. "Promise to Exclusively Use CryEngine for the Game" is really weird promise to be made.

Daikatana for example went from Quake1 to Unreal1 to Quake2. Also according to John Romero, the Source engine from Valve still has some Quake1 code in it.

Indeed, popcorn needed!

MaxBacon

Rosenborg said:

Indeed, popcorn needed!

We need the defendant's defense and then you have both levels of it, but until then it's just one side of it, that is the complaint.

But this is the very nature of it, both the presented complaint and the defense to be hyperbolic.

Vrika

Rosenborg said:

gervaise1 said:

Rosenborg said:

Tiamat64 said:

According to people who use Lumberyard, whatever CiG is using in their bugsmasher videos is either not Lumberyard (it even has a Crytek engine error message, which Lumberyard allegedly doesn't) or some custom combination of the two engines.  If it's the latter, that would explain why Crytek can claim CiG breached the switching clause while also continuing to use Crytek's engine.

I'd say it's a combination of two, or three engines actually.

CryEngine -> Star Engine ->Lumberyard

Seems they integrated Lumberyard code into Star Engine, instead of integrating Star Engine code into Lumberyard.

https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Engine

They won't integrate the RSI bespoke stuff though.

There is also the possibility of which version of Lumberyard is being used in the 3.0 branch - which was frozen a while back. Some of the more recent Lumberyard changes have concentrated on error trapping etc. As and when Crytek logos were removed however - no idea. Lumberyard development seems to be powering ahead.

I think Crytek logos were removed with the release of Alpha 2.6, when they switched to Lumberyard.

Strange but interesting case this is. "Promise to Exclusively Use CryEngine for the Game" is really weird promise to be made.

It's not so weird if Crytek was counting on getting RSI to share their bugfixes for free and display their logo every time the game is started.

It would have also put RSI into a position where if they were to make more than one game, they could use their old code, assets and experience optimally only if they bought license to use CryEngine also for that project.

Rosenborg

MaxBacon said:

Rosenborg said:

Indeed, popcorn needed!

We need the defendant's defense and then you have both levels of it, but until then it's just one side of it, that is the complaint.

But this is the very nature of it, both the presented complaint and the defense to be hyperbolic.

Correct!

I'm more excited about this case than the new Star Wars film. Very interesting to see what the defence will be and how this will eventually conclude.

Balmong

This smacks of a company making a mountain out of a molehill in the hopes for a quick payout. Cryteks problems are well known, and the Amazon/CIG partnership has been in effect for a year now. Why wait on it for so long? If there really was an exclusivity contract, it doesn't seem like it would take long to claim a breach in that. 

There is salt all over this lawsuit, I feel management at Crytek are trying to get back at CIG, because they're growing while Crytek is dwindling.

kikoodutroa8

This is good for Star Citizen!

Orinori

kikoodutroa8 said:

This is good for Star Citizen!

Correct, the community will most likely feel under attack and raise even more funds. By the time everyone realizes this is a big nothing burger that will probably be settled silently (and probably by Amazon) without anyone even knowing what happened, it will be too late. Star Citizen will have grown many many many more millions and the usual's will be only left with more ' uh bad management see' and 'ugh this is why crowdfunding sucks'. It is more than possible that CIG took the actions they did knowingly. I love the commotion though, free advertisement and just in time for SQ42 footage!