Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

gervaise1 · August 2018

ScotchUp said:

gervaise1 said:

ScotchUp said:

Back in May 2017,

"CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

Err ... which is what Max said and what was discussed last Christmas.

Pre-LY SC was using: CryEngine 3.8 + CiG written code.
Post LY SC is using LY + CiG written code.

Since LY = CryEngine 3.8 + Amazon written code
SC is using "CryEngine 3.8" + Amazon written code + CiG written code.

So no going back to the start, scrapping what they have done etc.

Now whilst CryEngine 3.8 is ..... roll of the drums ..... CryEngine 3.8 there is a difference.

Originally CiG was using CryEngine 3.8 via their agreement with Crysis. Now however CiG are using the CryEngine 3.8 code via their agreement with Amazon.

Which is what I have always considered to be at the heart of Crysis's complaint.

By "changing engines" CiG - from the date they changed - are no longer governed by the agreement they made with Crysis (being tied instead to the agreement they have with Amazon who in turn have an agreement with Crysis.)

Providing - of course - the agreement they signed with CiG allows them to change engine. Which Crysis argued that CiG couldn't but - it seems - the ruling is they can.

Everything else if fluff imo.

Yet the only opinion that will count is the Judge and it's not looking good for CIG.

And according to Kefo above:

"Looks like the cultists got it right on the exclusivity part though. The court interprets it as CIG are not forced to use CryEngine and are not excluded from using other engines. Therefore, in this case, exclusivity means they have the right to use it, not obliged."

So nothing to stop CiG changing to LY.

Kefo · August 2018

gervaise1 said:

ScotchUp said:

gervaise1 said:

ScotchUp said:

Back in May 2017,

"CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

I would have to find a more updated statement by Amazon but I believe it is a very small part at this time using CT code. So sorry Max you are wrong.

Err ... which is what Max said and what was discussed last Christmas.

Pre-LY SC was using: CryEngine 3.8 + CiG written code.
Post LY SC is using LY + CiG written code.

Since LY = CryEngine 3.8 + Amazon written code
SC is using "CryEngine 3.8" + Amazon written code + CiG written code.

So no going back to the start, scrapping what they have done etc.

Now whilst CryEngine 3.8 is ..... roll of the drums ..... CryEngine 3.8 there is a difference.

Originally CiG was using CryEngine 3.8 via their agreement with Crysis. Now however CiG are using the CryEngine 3.8 code via their agreement with Amazon.

Which is what I have always considered to be at the heart of Crysis's complaint.

By "changing engines" CiG - from the date they changed - are no longer governed by the agreement they made with Crysis (being tied instead to the agreement they have with Amazon who in turn have an agreement with Crysis.)

Providing - of course - the agreement they signed with CiG allows them to change engine. Which Crysis argued that CiG couldn't but - it seems - the ruling is they can.

Everything else if fluff imo.

Yet the only opinion that will count is the Judge and it's not looking good for CIG.

And according to Kefo above:

"Looks like the cultists got it right on the exclusivity part though. The court interprets it as CIG are not forced to use CryEngine and are not excluded from using other engines. Therefore, in this case, exclusivity means they have the right to use it, not obliged."

So nothing to stop CiG changing to LY.

Either I was really drunk and don’t remember posting that or you have the wrong person lol.

frostymug · August 2018

gervaise1 said:

And according to Kefo above:

"Looks like the cultists got it right on the exclusivity part though. The court interprets it as CIG are not forced to use CryEngine and are not excluded from using other engines. Therefore, in this case, exclusivity means they have the right to use it, not obliged."

So nothing to stop CiG changing to LY.

While that is true, one thing was brought up early, hasn't really been mentioned again or addressed in all these internet sweepstakes lawyer videos, but I'm pretty sure we will hear it again soon.

CIG was supposed to have Crytek splashscreens and the likes on their releases or videos or whatever. Basically advertising that they were using CryEngine. I can't be assed to go back and look at the specifics of it that were presented, but that's the general neighborhood of it. And they were not meeting that aspect of the deal.

Considering one party was a crowd funded company with no real reserves or guaranteed income and the other was a game engine owner who desperately needed to show more interest in using the engine from third party developers, I'm fairly positive there were some sweetheart provisions in the total cost based on those.

So far it looks like Crytek was fairly incompetent with regards to writing in kickers and clauses to fully protect their end of the contract. Should be interesting to see how everything plays out if/when discovery goes down and this moves forward.

Might not be obligated to use CryEngine exclusively, but if the terms of the original contract weren't met there could be something down the road for that.

MaxBacon · August 2018

frostymug said:
While that is true, one thing was brought up early, hasn't really been mentioned again or addressed in all these internet sweepstakes lawyer videos, but I'm pretty sure we will hear it again soon.

CIG was supposed to have Crytek splashscreens and the likes on their releases or videos or whatever. Basically advertising that they were using CryEngine. I can't be assed to go back and look at the specifics of it that were presented, but that's the general neighborhood of it. And they were not meeting that aspect of the deal.

Considering one party was a crowd funded company with no real reserves or guaranteed income and the other was a game engine owner who desperately needed to show more interest in using the engine from third party developers, I'm fairly positive there were some sweetheart provisions in the total cost based on those.

So far it looks like Crytek was fairly incompetent with regards to writing in kickers and clauses to fully protect their end of the contract. Should be interesting to see how everything plays out if/when discovery goes down and this moves forward.

Might not be obligated to use CryEngine exclusively, but if the terms of the original contract weren't met there could be something down the road for that.

If they were not obligated to use Cryengine, as ruled, then it doesn't make sense they are obligated to stand by the other points of the contract.

What Crytek amended the complaint seems like a weak argument, that agrees with the judge they could change engines but are now accusing they did breach the contract by "promoting another game engine", the reason and the lawyer also explains this, so if in the first place they weren't obligated to use their engine, then why are they obligated to not promote another engine after they did stop using Crytek's?!

I think Crytek knows their argument is weak, this is surely why they are now also after "StarEngine", that is the internal name CIG used for their modified branch of Cryengine, now how could that be considered one competitor engine to breach the GLA is beyond me, this seems pure mudslinging at the wall to see what sticks.

frostymug · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

If they were not obligated to use Cryengine, as ruled, then it doesn't make sense they are obligated to stand by the other points of the contract.

What Crytek amended the complaint seems like a weak argument, that agrees with the judge they could change engines but are now accusing they did breach the contract by "promoting another game engine", the reason and the lawyer also explains this, so if in the first place they weren't obligated to use their engine, then why are they obligated to not promote another engine after they did stop using Crytek's?!

I think Crytek knows their argument is weak, this is surely why they are now also after "StarEngine", that is the internal name CIG used for their modified branch of Cryengine, now how could that be considered one competitor engine to breach the GLA is beyond me, this seems pure mudslinging at the wall to see what sticks.

You are not obligated to use the phone you get with your cellular service contract. Try to nullify the rest of the contract based on the fact you are using a different phone and let me know how that flies

kikoodutroa8 · August 2018

Seems our resident forum lawyer is pissed by real life professionals disagreeing with him lol.

Cotic · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

frostymug said:
While that is true, one thing was brought up early, hasn't really been mentioned again or addressed in all these internet sweepstakes lawyer videos, but I'm pretty sure we will hear it again soon.

CIG was supposed to have Crytek splashscreens and the likes on their releases or videos or whatever. Basically advertising that they were using CryEngine. I can't be assed to go back and look at the specifics of it that were presented, but that's the general neighborhood of it. And they were not meeting that aspect of the deal.

Considering one party was a crowd funded company with no real reserves or guaranteed income and the other was a game engine owner who desperately needed to show more interest in using the engine from third party developers, I'm fairly positive there were some sweetheart provisions in the total cost based on those.

So far it looks like Crytek was fairly incompetent with regards to writing in kickers and clauses to fully protect their end of the contract. Should be interesting to see how everything plays out if/when discovery goes down and this moves forward.

Might not be obligated to use CryEngine exclusively, but if the terms of the original contract weren't met there could be something down the road for that.

If they were not obligated to use Cryengine, as ruled, then it doesn't make sense they are obligated to stand by the other points of the contract.

What Crytek amended the complaint seems like a weak argument, that agrees with the judge they could change engines but are now accusing they did breach the contract by "promoting another game engine", the reason and the lawyer also explains this, so if in the first place they weren't obligated to use their engine, then why are they obligated to not promote another engine after they did stop using Crytek's?!

I think Crytek knows their argument is weak, this is surely why they are now also after "StarEngine", that is the internal name CIG used for their modified branch of Cryengine, now how could that be considered one competitor engine to breach the GLA is beyond me, this seems pure mudslinging at the wall to see what sticks.

Unfortunately this shows how little you understand contractual law. One cannot pick and choose which part of a contract they believe applies to them, not without consequences, which is something CIG are discovering.

Crytek's argument is not weak, it is strategic. By forcing CIG to address one point ensures that they leave themselves open to another, they are using examples to show willful abuse of the contract, that is not a weak argument.

StarEngine was initially internal but CIG in their hubris started using the term publicly, as well as displaying it on their PR material in place of CryEngine. If they were contractually bound not to do these things for the duration of their Game License Agrement it should come as no surprise to see them called out on it.

If Illfonic had abused their contract with CIG and were taken to court would you say that CIG has no grounds to sue?

MaxBacon · August 2018

frostymug said:
You are not obligated to use the phone you get with your cellular service contract. Try to nullify the rest of the contract based on the fact you are using a different phone and let me know how that flies

Cotic said:
Unfortunately this shows how little you understand contractual law. One cannot pick and choose which part of a contract they believe applies to them, not without consequences, which is something CIG are discovering.

Crytek's argument is not weak, it is strategic. By forcing CIG to address one point ensures that they leave themselves open to another, they are using examples to show willful abuse of the contract, that is not a weak argument.

StarEngine was initially internal but CIG in their hubris started using the term publicly, as well as displaying it on their PR material in place of CryEngine. If they were contractually bound not to do these things for the duration of their Game License Agrement it should come as no surprise to see them called out on it.

If Illfonic had abused their contract with CIG and were taken to court would you say that CIG has no grounds to sue?

I do understand it superficially, but it's not about picking parts of the contract, this is not a phone contract that has that enforced terms where you are bound by years, it could be terminated, this has to be determined if stop using their Engine means they still were forced to display the logos on the game and so forth, and why would that be. And as far as the GLA goes, the moment CIG does stop using and removes Cryengine, the term of its license for SC ends, and other points get into place, if you don't think that is the case read below.

The StarEngine argument is not weak? Oh no way it's not... The point 2.4 where this is specifically mentioned (the complaint is about they promoted another game engine) says they could not change or promote a game engine that competes with Cryengine, trying to tie the mentions of StarEngine to that:

Amending the complaint to have a go at StarEngine on that context, that is what the complaint is, is not what you're implying that they were contractually bound to say Cryengine, what they're arguing is that them mentioning their modified CE as StarEngine competes with CE, breaching point 2.4.

As that point 2.4 shows that the termination of the license is a given by Crytek, that's why their argument is now that they could not promote another engine for 2 YEARS after term of the license, so the term of the license was when CIG decided to stop using and removed CE, and after the fact, only provisions as that one should count and will be argued in court.

That 2.4 point is what that other lawyer says is not what is being put to mean and when that goes to court and gets pull in full context it'll show, such as calling experts to contextualize the standard meaning of such provisions.

mr1602 · August 2018

Erillion said:

<>>>
Do you really think people constantly seeing "CIG fucks up yet again!" is magically going to make them want to get involved and spend their money?
>>>>

*** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

Seemingly the answer is: YES

Have fun

In an ironic twist, this case will actually prove whether the $190+ million dollar figure is true or not.

As discovery for the below has been requested;
54) All federal or state tax returns filed by or on behalf of DEFENDANTS.
55) All quarterly or annual financial statements of DEFENDANTS.

strykr619 · August 2018

This thread is literally something to yawn at and for the people who dislike this game to feed off of. I always assume a game will fail at this point, didn't stop me from spending $50 dollars. I've downloaded what they have to date and it looks good. If it never comes out that's fine, I'll just contact my bank and charge back...

People get so worked up over simple stuff.

rpmcmurphy · August 2018

MaxBacon said:
I do understand it superficially, but it's not about picking parts of the contract, this is not a phone contract that has that enforced terms where you are bound by years, it could be terminated, this has to be determined if stop using their Engine means they still were forced to display the logos on the game and so forth, and why would that be. And as far as the GLA goes, the moment CIG does stop using and removes Cryengine, the term of its license for SC ends, and other points get into place, if you don't think that is the case read below.

They didn't stop using and remove it though, this has been shown via various videos. Adding their own code and changing the name does not suddenly mean that CryTek's IP is no longer being employed.

Erillion · August 2018

mr1602 said:

Erillion said:

<>>>
Do you really think people constantly seeing "CIG fucks up yet again!" is magically going to make them want to get involved and spend their money?
>>>>

*** looks at 192 M$ gathered ***

Seemingly the answer is: YES

Have fun

In an ironic twist, this case will actually prove whether the $190+ million dollar figure is true or not.

As discovery for the below has been requested;
54) All federal or state tax returns filed by or on behalf of DEFENDANTS.
55) All quarterly or annual financial statements of DEFENDANTS.

>>> will actually prove whether the $190+ million dollar figure is true or not. >>>>

Unless 500 developers have been working for free for years, someone has been paying them wages with money gathered via - most likely - crowdfunding.

Not to mention that we already KNOW the financial figures for the UK studio, because they are publically available.

Have fun

MaxBacon · August 2018

rpmcmurphy said:
They didn't stop using and remove it though, this has been shown via various videos. Adding their own code and changing the name does not suddenly mean that CryTek's IP is no longer being employed.

This is not a normal situation because they changed to one engine that had pretty much the same codebase as theirs, so as long there isn't code there that exists in SC's codebase and CE's codebase but that was never part of LY's codebase, then Crytek's IP is indeed no longer employed.

rpmcmurphy · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:
They didn't stop using and remove it though, this has been shown via various videos. Adding their own code and changing the name does not suddenly mean that CryTek's IP is no longer being employed.

This is not a normal situation because they changed to one engine that had pretty much the same codebase as theirs, so as long there isn't code there that exists in SC's codebase and CE's codebase but that was never part of LY's codebase, then Crytek's IP is indeed no longer employed.

What you are discussing happened long after the point I brought up.

In fact I can hardly make head or tail of what you are trying to say. Can you explain what you mean a bit better please.

MaxBacon · August 2018

rpmcmurphy said:
What you are discussing happened long after the point I brought up.

In fact I can hardly make head or tail of what you are trying to say. Can you explain what you mean a bit better please.

It's also Amazon's IP, with the majority of the base codebase identical, they could have "copy/pasted" their custom refactored code into it because it's covered by the IP Amazon also owns and licensed to CIG, what goes beyond that scope is what should be potentially a breach.

rpmcmurphy · August 2018

Again this is separate from the point I was making. The fact is, prior to switching to Amazon's repos, they were using CryEngine but were also promoting StarEngine. I also believe there was talk about selling StarEngine, this stuff happened while they were bound by your interpretation of when the GLA was in effect.

Phaserlight · August 2018

strykr619 said:

This thread is literally something to yawn at and for the people who dislike this game to feed off of. I always assume a game will fail at this point, didn't stop me from spending $50 dollars. I've downloaded what they have to date and it looks good. If it never comes out that's fine, I'll just contact my bank and charge back...

People get so worked up over simple stuff.

@strykr619 Good luck with that, seeing as you've downloaded their product, used it, and agreed to their terms of service. Also, what date qualifies as "never" to you?

At least it was only $50.

mr1602 · August 2018

Erillion said:

>>> will actually prove whether the $190+ million dollar figure is true or not. >>>>

Unless 500 developers have been working for free for years, someone has been paying them wages with money gathered via - most likely - crowdfunding.

Not to mention that we already KNOW the financial figures for the UK studio, because they are publically available.

Have fun

Whether they all add up to $190+ million is the debate. Also the fund tracker.

Speaking of 'wages', 'who got paid for what and for how much' will also fall under discovery.
Including payments to influencer, contractors etc
I'm sure CIG followed FTC guidelines in paying influencers and making sure 'disclosure for payment' was done.
Courts don't like to find activities that don't follow Govt guidelines and they have already made it known that they prefer Crytek.

MaxBacon · August 2018

rpmcmurphy said:

Again this is separate from the point I was making. The fact is, prior to switching to Amazon's repos, they were using CryEngine but were also promoting StarEngine. I also believe there was talk about selling StarEngine, this stuff happened while they were bound by your interpretation of when the GLA was in effect.

The engine of SC had never stop being Cryengine, devs mentioning StarEngine here and there is a rather superficial thing as the internal name they given it should be easily defeated when put against the whole context ; context of the complaint that as per 2.4, has to be another game engine that competes with CryEngine to be a breach.

This is also the argument the lawyer made, that when this goes to court and they bring experts and such to contextualize the meaning and point of such provisions, that it will not constitute a breach.

ScotchUp · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Again this is separate from the point I was making. The fact is, prior to switching to Amazon's repos, they were using CryEngine but were also promoting StarEngine. I also believe there was talk about selling StarEngine, this stuff happened while they were bound by your interpretation of when the GLA was in effect.

The engine of SC had never stop being Cryengine, devs mentioning StarEngine here and there is a rather superficial thing as the internal name they given it should be easily defeated when put against the whole context ; context of the complaint that as per 2.4, has to be another game engine that competes with CryEngine to be a breach.

This is also the argument the lawyer made, that when this goes to court and they bring experts and such to contextualize the meaning and point of such provisions, that it will not constitute a breach.

There is no way after all this time, CIG will be able to PAY experts to come in and "contextualize the meaning and point of such provisions". You guys keep thinking that 190+ million dollars are still available. Unless the Roberts brothers take money out of their bank accounts to pay for the experts there just isn't enough cash laying around. Believe me, even if backers give them 2 to 3 million a month that will not be enough to pay devs working on the game(s) and pay for the experts.

I can't believe any of you keep thinking that 190+ is still available.

MaxBacon · August 2018

ScotchUp said:
There is no way after all this time, CIG will be able to PAY experts to come in and "contextualize the meaning and point of such provisions". You guys keep thinking that 190+ million dollars are still available. Unless the Roberts brothers take money out of their bank accounts to pay for the experts there just isn't enough cash laying around. Believe me, even if backers give them 2 to 3 million a month that will not be enough to pay devs working on the game(s) and pay for the experts.

I can't believe any of you keep thinking that 190+ is still available.

What a ridiculous argument. They can, and they will, that's exactly what court is for, to fundament your arguments and build your case, as so will Crytek. Expert opinions I'd bet will be a main thing on the case, as they will contextualize this contract and what both parties argue X and Y mean, with the standards on the industry.

rpmcmurphy · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Again this is separate from the point I was making. The fact is, prior to switching to Amazon's repos, they were using CryEngine but were also promoting StarEngine. I also believe there was talk about selling StarEngine, this stuff happened while they were bound by your interpretation of when the GLA was in effect.

The engine of SC had never stop being Cryengine, devs mentioning StarEngine here and there is a rather superficial thing as the internal name they given it should be easily defeated when put against the whole context ; context of the complaint that as per 2.4, has to be another game engine that competes with CryEngine to be a breach.

This is also the argument the lawyer made, that when this goes to court and they bring experts and such to contextualize the meaning and point of such provisions, that it will not constitute a breach.

Of course it never stopped being CE but that doesn't mean they can go around calling it something else publicly, once they do that it is not a superficial thing.
Chris talked about StarEngine, Lando talked about it, various other devs also referred to it as Star Engine and this was all prior to their switch to Lumberyard.

Even now that they are "using" Lumberyard they still talk about StarEngine, ie this Citizencon video

MaxBacon · August 2018

rpmcmurphy said:
Of course it never stopped being CE but that doesn't mean they can go around calling it something else publicly, once they do that it is not a superficial thing.
Chris talked about StarEngine, Lando talked about it, various other devs also referred to it as Star Engine and this was all prior to their switch to Lumberyard.

Even now that they are "using" Lumberyard they still talk about StarEngine, ie this Citizencon video

That was after the Lumberyard change, during the Cryengine license from what is referred they only mentioned StarEngine a few months before the switch was announced. Even so it still would have to apply on the box "it is a competitor engine" in context to be a breach, what seems a difficult argument to prove as them giving their codebase its name did never make the engine of the game not being officially CryEngine, much less its competitor... To me feels like a weak argument from CT's side.

The context that could defeat Crytek's argument: "..our heavily modified version of the engine which we have dubbed StarEngine..."

dubbed = give an unofficial name or nickname to.

As they were talking StarEngine 1 year after the switch, Amazon doesn't seem any bothered, but Crytek is. With that context, StarEngine was never the engine, it was the nickname for their modified version of CryEngine, and that stands the same now with Lumberyard.

Kefo · August 2018

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:
Of course it never stopped being CE but that doesn't mean they can go around calling it something else publicly, once they do that it is not a superficial thing.
Chris talked about StarEngine, Lando talked about it, various other devs also referred to it as Star Engine and this was all prior to their switch to Lumberyard.

Even now that they are "using" Lumberyard they still talk about StarEngine, ie this Citizencon video

That was after the Lumberyard change, during the Cryengine license from what is referred they only mentioned StarEngine a few months before the switch was announced. Even so it still would have to apply on the box "it is a competitor engine" in context to be a breach, what seems a difficult argument to prove as them giving their codebase its name did never make the engine of the game not being officially CryEngine, much less its competitor... To me feels like a weak argument from CT's side.

The context that could defeat Crytek's argument: "..our heavily modified version of the engine which we have dubbed StarEngine..."

dubbed = give an unofficial name or nickname to.

As they were talking StarEngine 1 year after the switch, Amazon doesn't seem any bothered, but Crytek is. With that context, StarEngine was never the engine, it was the nickname for their modified version of CryEngine, and that stands the same now with Lumberyard.

If CIG wanted to cover their ass they should have mentioned cryengine everytime they brought up star engine.

”Star engine, our heavily modified version of Cryengine, blah blah blah”

and they would have probably been been able to get away with it since they are mentioning that CE is still being used but they modified it. If CIG just started saying only Star engine then it can easily be argued that it is a competitor product and they breached the GLA. Also I believe either Crytek is saying or the GLA states that just because they switched to lumberyard doesn’t mean the agreement is terminated

MaxBacon · August 2018

Kefo said:
If CIG wanted to cover their ass they should have mentioned cryengine everytime they brought up star engine.

”Star engine, our heavily modified version of Cryengine, blah blah blah”

and they would have probably been been able to get away with it since they are mentioning that CE is still being used but they modified it. If CIG just started saying only Star engine then it can easily be argued that it is a competitor product and they breached the GLA. Also I believe either Crytek is saying or the GLA states that just because they switched to lumberyard doesn’t mean the agreement is terminated

It's not covering their ass, it's there, clarified on that quote, StarEngine was never even an engine, it was a nickname for the real engine, then CryEngine, now Lumberyard.

And from the GLA contract, there doesn't show to be anything there that obligate them to use the word CryEngine, the point of their complaint is specifically that they "promoted a competitor engine" when talking StarEngine, if StarEngine, as it's there, quoted is a nickname for their modified Cryengine codebase, and there is nothing on the GLA that goes against that, then there's no breach, there's was no competitor engine, there was only CryEngine.

Howdy, Stranger!

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Comments