Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

 it's like this is not based on a cost vs profit and business expectations and even goals for said titles, and there is some standard number that defines success or failure. I'm done discussing with you, go find someone else.

It would be nice if it was based on cost vs profit and business expectations and goals.  But you only care about revenues.  Like I said, it's just ugly to watch.

rodarin

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

Many video game budgets get quite close to that of movies.  I don't see why it's an invalid comparison.  Do you need me to bring up a video game comparison now?  Sure, even though it's not going to stop you from derailing the topic and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

It is one invalid comparison because you are blatantly ignoring so much to make any argument possible. 

I'm not even addressing your ridiculous argument you did spin this towards, it's like this is not based on a cost vs profit and business expectations and even goals for said titles, and there is some standard number that defines success or failure. I'm done discussing with you, go shop somewhere else.

irony....

 roberts gone game is finished yay or nay?

Tiamat64

rodarin said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:

Many video game budgets get quite close to that of movies.  I don't see why it's an invalid comparison.  Do you need me to bring up a video game comparison now?  Sure, even though it's not going to stop you from derailing the topic and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

It is one invalid comparison because you are blatantly ignoring so much to make any argument possible. 

I'm not even addressing your ridiculous argument you did spin this towards, it's like this is not based on a cost vs profit and business expectations and even goals for said titles, and there is some standard number that defines success or failure. I'm done discussing with you, go shop somewhere else.

irony....

 roberts gone game is finished yay or nay?

Well, there's always the chance that this is just the beginning.  There's still that major bank, Coutts, that CiG may or may not have to deal with depending on how much Crytek said is true and how honest CiG was with the bank to get that loan.

I kinda wish CiG DID have an actual substantial contract with Amazon that Amazon would actually care about because I'm sure CiG would have found a way to screw that up, too.

FlyByKnight

CIG might be slipping and falling down that slippery slope they've been playing around on.

If you can't 100% deny that the game was built on and benefited from CryENGINE or whatever tech they started raising money, doing free flys, and early access 3.X with, you might as well kick back and eat some popcorn and enjoy this legal battle like the rest of us.

It's about to get dirty. Financial records, and all that. 

mr1602

The constant 'Amazon will save CIG!' statement is bizarre. The Amazon partnership lasted 6 weeks. After that they said 'nope!' and withdrew their staff, computers and gear.

CIG has 21 days to respond so we'll see how this ends up pretty soon.
Although, if Coutts is calling in their loan I suspect it might be over sooner than that.

Orinori

Dauzqul said:

lol @ all the lawyers here. Keep pretending!

shh, don't let them know, It's 5 Days before the first SQ42 clip. Need some build up entertainment.

Orinori

mr1602 said:

so we'll see how this ends up pretty soon.

Ha, I thought the other comment I quoted was my favorite but then I read this! 

Izzin

There have been comments about "Profit" made in this thread. I guess one thing that may come of this. Is "Crowdfunding" actually considered a profit generating event, or is capital earned through crowd funding actually investment capital. 

Considering that there is not a product that is actually being sold as final, what profits are actually available for Cry to actually go after. 

I think this is far more of a precedent setting event. Is it of interest that the filing was done in the US not in Germany? 

There were comments in other threads that Star Citizen was a product because VAT was charged. Where in the US tax is not charged as it is considered a donation. Not an actual Sale of Product and/or Services. 

I am not a lawyer, nor am I going to theorize right or wrong. We the public do not have nearly enough information on either side.

I am a fan and backer of SC however, and I want them to do what is right and move past this to continue to develop and release this game. 3.0 has been outstanding in my opinion for an Alpha, I just cant wait to see the additional polish and work go into it. 

-Izz

Erillion

I personally would be surprised if this is not settled out of court. Most want money, not justice. Especially the lawyers.

@MaxBacon thank you for the link to the Leonard French video


Have fun

Tiamat64

Be surprised (maybe).  Polygon got a response from Cryptek last night

https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/13/16774244/crytek-star-citizen-cryengine-lawsuit

Update (Dec. 15): Overnight, Crytek responded to Polygon with the following statement:

“Crytek is a technology company and intellectual property is its greatest asset,” they said. “It is unfortunate that this lawsuit had to be brought, but Crytek has been left with no option but to protect its intellectual property in court.”

Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

MaxBacon

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Tiamat64

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

The legal process is a long and slow one, but fortunately not as long and slow as Star Citizen's development, so I'm sure we'll find out the truth soon enough.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Orinori

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Yes, I imagine CIG were not aware they had signed any contracts. Probably sent out that message when they were in one of those famous coke parties as well, man those silly roberts boys!

edit: now i am just imagining them sipping fizzy pop through straws, doesn't quite have the same oomph about it.

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Is that the professional opinion of a copyright lawyer, or a forum opinion of one armchair lawyer?

TalulaRose

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Is that the professional opinion of a copyright lawyer, or a forum opinion of one armchair lawyer?

As this is not a court of law and just a public forum why does your question matter?

I guess when you cant speak to the comment you go after the one who made the comment.

Try harder.

gervaise1

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Kefo

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

MadFrenchie

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

If they're continuing to use Crytek's engine, they would have to continue providing the payments and other cooperation described in the docs, though.

I don't think you can consider LY and CryEngine the same at this point- specifically since the two are governed by very different licensing agreements.  It speaks to their being two distinct products being offered.

MaxBacon

TalulaRose said:

As this is not a court of law and just a public forum why does your question matter?

I guess when you cant speak to the comment you go after the one who made the comment.

Try harder.

There was pages ago the stream of a copyright lawyer that explained and had its take on this stuff, that is a professional opinion, this is armchair lawyering. These discussions are still opinions but not coming from professional insight, hence the "armchair this or that" term.

Octagon7711

When they switched to the other engine they would have had to completely rebuild from scratch to eliminate all of the original code.  The complaint says they could see their engine being used in bugsmashers with their labels removed.  Mostly they probably kept the core or some parts and built off of that.  

MaxBacon

Octagon7711 said:

When they switched to the other engine they would have had to completely rebuild from scratch to eliminate all of the original code.  The complaint says they could see their engine being used in bugsmashers with their labels removed.  Mostly they probably kept the core or some parts and built off of that.  

Even if they used 100% Lumberyard, their code was still there.

When Lumberyard forked off CE, it was a copy of CE, they simply have been modifying that since and still do, I think Amazon claims at this moment they have refactored 50% of it (yes 50% is still stock Cryengine code).

So it's quite a complex matter where we can't go by the rule "oh it's the same code as stock CE so it's Crytek's code".

azarhal

Kefo said:

gervaise1 said:

Kefo said:

MaxBacon said:

Tiamat64 said:
Kinda sounds like it's going to court.

That statement would still be the same even if they are right now discussing a settlement, default "PR" responses do not reflect that.

In fact, the whole filling of the lawsuit itself can be to fill the purpose to push CIG into a settlement and not to end in court, and that is the professional opinion of a copyright attorney from reading the documents.

Kinda like how CIG's response basically gave Cryteks lawyers more ammo by admitting they haven't used cryengine in a while when they had an exclusivity deal? 

Lets say you enter some employment clause that says "you have to use an Android phone". And you buy one of Samsung's offerings. Would you be in breach of contract? WTF you might say but - it could be argued - you are using Samsung's OS which is merely based on the Android OS with tweaks they have added.

See the parrallel? SC (per RSI) is (now) being developed using Lumberyard which is "CryEngine" with some "tweaks" by Amazon.

I don't know what RSI have signed. There may be caveats for example. If it was "clear cut" however there wouldn't be an issue - CR's business partner is a lawyer (pretty much in this area) after all.

Remember as well it isn't in Crysis's best interest for SC to "fail" either - they win if SC is delivered, this is more a case of how big they (might) win. 

Im just going off what I can read in the court documents. I doubt Crytek will post the entire agreement between them and CIG so can't say for sure. Until it comes out in court we won't know for sure.

I think in cryteks mind CIG is trying to weasel out of paying royalties by switching to lumberyard and saying "see we aren't using cryengine anymore so the deal is null and void" but that's just my opinion

CIG stopped taking CryEngine build updates late 2015. That was before announcing the SQ42 only package (Dec 2015 announcement, but didn't happen until Feb 2016), starting to use StarEngine (mid-2016 change) and announcing the switch to Lumberyard (a late 2016 announcement). If they aren't taking new builds anymore, they can't really push fixes into the Crytek branch either.

The entire list of issues Crytek has with CIG start in November 2015 which line up nicely with CIG stopping to take new builds from them.

In other word, Crytek is not telling the whole story and I wouldn't be surprised that CIG will mention in their response that they considered the contract with Crytek terminated since they stopped to take code drops from them in late 2015.

Gruug

One, we do not know what the contractual agreement was between Star Citizen and Crytech. There could have been a clause in their contract that stated that Star Citizen had the right to replace the engine at any time if it was deemed needed to develop the game. The game is still in development and changing engines is not an uncommon practice. I would suggest that Crytech's money problems are starting to make them just a bit over reaching in an attempt to save themselves.

kikoodutroa8