The bankruptcy was in response to several others who brought it up as evidence that Crytek wouldn't be a threat to CiG. Crytek does indeed have the money to throw around and allegedly according to the documents was complaining to CiG for several years prior to this, hence the settlement time is long gone.
If the case was really so dead, you'd think Crytek and Skadden would have settled for a settlement or something a year or two ago. As it is, any chance for this lawsuit to be inconsequential have likely long-since passed months ago.
The several others who brought it up are unaware that Crytek got a massive investment from gov, and are thinking more what happened just in the months before, the studios closing down, unpaid developers, etc...
If the case was really a given for Crytek, CIG would have looked into settling it before going to court, they seem to be willing to undertake the costs to fight them on court. So it shows to go both ways, what I would speculate that this going to be a complex case, not a short one either.
The bankruptcy was in response to several others who brought it up as evidence that Crytek wouldn't be a threat to CiG. Crytek does indeed have the money to throw around and allegedly according to the documents was complaining to CiG for several years prior to this, hence the settlement time is long gone.
If the case was really so dead, you'd think Crytek and Skadden would have settled for a settlement or something a year or two ago. As it is, any chance for this lawsuit to be inconsequential have likely long-since passed months ago.
The several others who brought it up are unaware that Crytek got a massive investment from gov, and are thinking more what happened just in the months before, the studios closing down, unpaid developers, etc...
If the case was really a given for Crytek, CIG would have looked into settling it before going to court, they seem to be willing to undertake the costs to fight them on court. It goes both ways, what I would say is that this going to be a complex case, not a short one either.
Oh, yea, it's not a given for Crytek. They wouldn't have had to hire Skadden in the first place if that was the case. It's just not a given for CiG like so many people seem to be thinking it is.
Oh, yea, it's not a given for Crytek. They wouldn't have had to hire Skadden in the first place if that was the case. It's just not a given for CiG like so many people seem to be thinking it is.
I don't think it's a given for CIG either. Just that we know too little to ever have a decent perception of what's going on in both sides of the argument on this "company vs company" that is to happen.
But I agree with you in terms of the lawyers, you would hire a firm like that when you want to win a tough case.
Oh, yea, it's not a given for Crytek. They wouldn't have had to hire Skadden in the first place if that was the case. It's just not a given for CiG like so many people seem to be thinking it is.
I don't think it's a given for CIG either. Just that we know too little to ever have a decent perception of what's going on in both sides of the argument on this "company vs company" that is to happen.
But I agree with you in terms of the lawyers, you would hire a firm like that when you want to win a tough case.
I never said you did. My original post bringing up Skadden's involvement wasn't responding to you, after all. It was responding to and quoting Shane, who implied it was a given for CiG by wondering why Crytek would even bother. Simply put, to reiterate my response to him in a shorter version and cutting Skadden out of it to simplify things: Crytek bothered because they believe they have a decent chance to win.
Someone will have to search but I think I said when Roberts claimed he had been 'secretly' working with Amazon for a year prior I said off the cuff 'that must be why Cryteck is suing them' I am sure the fanboys that all blew a gasket when I said that will remember it. I might have even gotten a vacation for it and therefore it might not even exist anymore.
Now it all sort of plays out, suing may have been a misnomer but they were definitely sending them threatening letters.
Either way like I said in the other thread, and this does apparently seem ed ot be filed in the US, then FOI comes into play, cant wait for people to get a hold of all the financial records.
CiG with all their bluster and rhetoric will NEVER EVER let this go to court because they will do anything and everything in their power to make sure how much money they have made and where is has gone never sees the light of day.
As soon as it goes to trial and theyre filed its a matter of public record.
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
Someone mentioned that they had maybe been sending letters for years. Also, my original understanding when I backed (early early) was that S42 was the single player component and there would be an open world experience based on that. . at this point they seem very different but I don't think they were at the time.
No maybe, per the Court docs. They have. Not only that, but one of the complaints was that Crytek never license the engine to CIG for anything other than Star Citizen. That means that a standalone SQ42 would he in violation of the contract agreement.
No maybe, per the Court docs. They have. Not only that, but one of the complaints was that Crytek never license the engine to CIG for anything other than Star Citizen. That means that a standalone SQ42 would he in violation of the contract agreement.
That's what they say, remember you're only getting the complaint to base all your info, nothing else.
Also on the SQ42 bit, I don't think so if it becomes a game mode, you can still sell it as the SP campaign of SC but still part of the same game.
That would be something as, even if you bought SQ42 standalone you would still be running the SC client with the executable parameter (that I think that is what the launcher is for, allow to launch SC/SQ42/AC/SM from it).
So that argument may not be as black and white as they are making it.
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
Someone mentioned that they had maybe been sending letters for years. Also, my original understanding when I backed (early early) was that S42 was the single player component and there would be an open world experience based on that. . at this point they seem very different but I don't think they were at the time.
No maybe, per the Court docs. They have. Not only that, but one of the complaints was that Crytek never license the engine to CIG for anything other than Star Citizen. That means that a standalone SQ42 would he in violation of the contract agreement.
I remember CIG was saying SQ42 was to be the start of SC. You would play the single player then become a citizen and advance into SC. Later they separated it and said SQ42 would be a three part single player game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
Well, the argument Crytek gave to the law firm handling the case, Skadden, must have been really convincing. Skadden wouldn't take the case if Crytek were really going bankrupt and losing the case meant not getting paid, amongst other things like reputation, etc.
UPDATE: We have received a brief statement from Cloud Imperium Games about the recently filed legal documentation by Crytek:
From CIG…
We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court. CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter.
Putting out a public statement that says you've broken your contract with another party (exclusivity agreement), doesn't seem like a very smart move.
That means nothing. Ortwin is an investor and well known Attorney. If you believe they did not read contracts, both from Crytek and Amazon you are missing the point. Crytek is dying and are seeking for cash. That will ends up without any court fight. Crytek has zero chance to win. The game is not even out... lets have some fun with this new drama
Crytek was through one huge domino collapse in the past times yes.
I remember the news months ago about that Crytek Japanese studio people not being paid for up to 6 months that they just came to work one day and the doors were shut. Kinda messy.
But remember they were saved by the Turkish gov by the amount I think up to 500 million. But it's pretty normal one opportunity to make money they'll sue.
Just see the one over Ark Survival.
What .. the fuck ? If Crytek is having financial problems, does it means that they don't have the right to sue for their shits because Max, Bacon, JoeB and Lober thinks that they are ..actually .. greedy?!
So you turn the shit from CIG to Crytek ?! You two can't ever talk about any other company in the world without looking in your.. backyard.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy? Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
Someone will have to search but I think I said when Roberts claimed he had been 'secretly' working with Amazon for a year prior I said off the cuff 'that must be why Cryteck is suing them' I am sure the fanboys that all blew a gasket when I said that will remember it. I might have even gotten a vacation for it and therefore it might not even exist anymore.
Now it all sort of plays out, suing may have been a misnomer but they were definitely sending them threatening letters.
Either way like I said in the other thread, and this does apparently seem ed ot be filed in the US, then FOI comes into play, cant wait for people to get a hold of all the financial records.
CiG with all their bluster and rhetoric will NEVER EVER let this go to court because they will do anything and everything in their power to make sure how much money they have made and where is has gone never sees the light of day.
As soon as it goes to trial and theyre filed its a matter of public record.
I'm absolutely astounded the contract had no arbitration clause to keep this out of the public. It is so fundamental and basic that the legal world considers it malpractice to not have one.
I don't know why Crytek would even try this, they just look so dumb like they didn't notice the lumberyard switch.
And whoever is saying that Squadron 42 is a DLC is absolutly wrong. They are 2 separate games being built together at the same time because both use features from the other.
No, they noticed it. Hence why Crytek are filing this since the contract was 'exclusively use CryEngine'.
I may be completely off here, but it seems to me like Crytek has a pretty good case here, and the only argument the SC fan boys have here is to scream "NUH UH!!!!" and parrot what Roberts said. I'm not saying what Crytek says is true, I'm saying if it is, SC is in trouble.
I mean, the game is already my odds on favorite for "first game to implode like a dying star due to feature creep", and now they're being sued? A few more missed dates, and we can call this a wrap finally....
Sounds like it's time to whip up some more digital spaceship 1's and 0's to sell to the suc.. *cough*, backers in order to pay for the lawsuit...
Or may be they can start to sell house hold items for your homestead on the land you can buy that you cant see or use,,,, I mean you have to have a chair and table ,,, right,,, yeah you wont be able to use it ,,,,, it will fit right in with the ships you have that are just a pic,,,,,
So they are taking them to court for a unfinished game? That is worth a laugh in itself. Not sure how you sue someone when it is not released yet.
pretty sure you would sue them too if they make tons of money using your engine and not give you a penny because "its still in development".
You are still not paying attention.....that's at least twice now, this isn't one of those "the more you say something it is bound to come true" moments
The update to this makes it sound like they forgot about the contract they had with crytek making it the only engine they can use. Sure lumberyard is a variant of it but that wasn't part of the deal nor was removing cryengine logos in promos.
If this isn't settled they will lose more in the end.
The update to this makes it sound like they forgot about the contract they had with crytek making it the only engine they can use. Sure lumberyard is a variant of it but that wasn't part of the deal nor was removing cryengine logos in promos.
If this isn't settled they will lose more in the end.
Get your facts straight, this is a completely baseless suite. Cytek is dying and this is a just a desperate move on their part.
They've had two years to settle before this came to what it is today. So apparently it's not baseless enough for things to reach a point where Crytek is willing to pay for one of the top law firms in the world to pursue this (and, as Max Bacon pointed out, that's not a last ditch move because they do have money to throw around still).
If it were really so baseless, Crytek would have been laughed away 2 years ago when they first brought it up.
It is interesting how Crytek, formerly known as a well respected supplier and partner suddenly became a stupid, dying, evil company after CIG decided to switch to a free engine based on the same CryEngine they licensed and upon which they persistently based their products. CryEngine's visual capabilities have been key factors in dazzling SC's audience right from the beginning and the engine has been cruicial in boosting CIG's crowdfunding up to this date.
Comments
If the case was really a given for Crytek, CIG would have looked into settling it before going to court, they seem to be willing to undertake the costs to fight them on court. So it shows to go both ways, what I would speculate that this going to be a complex case, not a short one either.
But I agree with you in terms of the lawyers, you would hire a firm like that when you want to win a tough case.
Now it all sort of plays out, suing may have been a misnomer but they were definitely sending them threatening letters.
Either way like I said in the other thread, and this does apparently seem ed ot be filed in the US, then FOI comes into play, cant wait for people to get a hold of all the financial records.
CiG with all their bluster and rhetoric will NEVER EVER let this go to court because they will do anything and everything in their power to make sure how much money they have made and where is has gone never sees the light of day.
As soon as it goes to trial and theyre filed its a matter of public record.
Also on the SQ42 bit, I don't think so if it becomes a game mode, you can still sell it as the SP campaign of SC but still part of the same game.
That would be something as, even if you bought SQ42 standalone you would still be running the SC client with the executable parameter (that I think that is what the launcher is for, allow to launch SC/SQ42/AC/SM from it).
So that argument may not be as black and white as they are making it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Putting out a public statement that says you've broken your contract with another party (exclusivity agreement), doesn't seem like a very smart move.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
What .. the fuck ? If Crytek is having financial problems, does it means that they don't have the right to sue for their shits because Max, Bacon, JoeB and Lober thinks that they are ..actually .. greedy?!
So you turn the shit from CIG to Crytek ?! You two can't ever talk about any other company in the world without looking in your.. backyard.
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
It is so fundamental and basic that the legal world considers it malpractice to not have one.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
I mean, the game is already my odds on favorite for "first game to implode like a dying star due to feature creep", and now they're being sued? A few more missed dates, and we can call this a wrap finally....
Or may be they can start to sell house hold items for your homestead on the land you can buy that you cant see or use,,,, I mean you have to have a chair and table ,,, right,,, yeah you wont be able to use it ,,,,, it will fit right in with the ships you have that are just a pic,,,,,
You are still not paying attention.....that's at least twice now, this isn't one of those "the more you say something it is bound to come true" moments
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
If you break a contract, there are consequences.
Original - http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4551#post462019951 (paywall)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-15-through-gritted-teeth-star-citizen-developer-gives-player-whopping-usd2500-refund
CIG is sued by Crytek
https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/14/16776300/crytek-star-citizen-lawsuit-cig-rsi
EX-Backer StreetRoller sues Chris Roberts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojx7VcbowYQ
If this isn't settled they will lose more in the end.
If it were really so baseless, Crytek would have been laughed away 2 years ago when they first brought it up.