Star Citizen Discussions v7

[ianw]

It's going to hit 'potential investor' confidence in coming sales though. And I'd almost put money on CIG not having huge cash reserves.

This is the thing - once this hits big time tomorrow who - in terms of new punters - is going to think this is a worthwhile "pre-order?"

And how many of the whales - despite public declarations of support - are going to think "yeah - I should keep pumping money into this..."

 

[DLewth]

Hmm, then again a sizeable proportion of the backers display so many of the characteristics of yer common or garden embattled, in-denial cultist that a setback like this might only lash them on to even greater heights of wallet opening and money tree watering...

This. The reason Derek Smart has not actually been right yet is, he mis-understands how deeply whales can dive...

 

[TenakaFurey]

At what point can CIG claim that their Star Engine isn't the CryEngine anymore?

Legally? I don't think they can.

Even if they replaced 100% of the code, CryTek can say that's what their license allowed, and it is still a derivative of CryEngine and that their logos and other promotional agreements are still in place, as is the prohibition forbidding hem from switching engines.

 

[VidarSnipes]

It's going to hit 'potential investor' confidence in coming sales though. And I'd almost put money on CIG not having huge cash reserves.

I dunno, those are the same investors who have shelled out over 7 million in their latest sale, after an extremely buggy and (I'm told) really limited release to a test server, with only minor patches during last two years before that. Almost all upvoted comments on the SC subreddit call CryTek copyright trolls and so on.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm aware of that, but if the injunction against CIG won't be awarded, they should be able to work on the game in the meantime.

How long does that take to be determined?

Legally? I don't think they can.

Even if they replaced 100% of the code, CryTek can say that's what their license allowed, and it is still a derivative of CryEngine and that their logos and other promotional agreements are still in place, as is the prohibition forbidding hem from switching engines.

Valve used the GoldSrc engine, a heavily modified version of the Quake Engine and changed it so that it became the Source Engine.

 

[Steve O B Have]

This. The reason Derek Smart has not actually been right yet is, he mis-understands how deeply whales can dive...

And here I was thinking that whales were pretty intelligent... If they throw money into this to support the 'sins' of the developers then they're not quite as smart as they'd like to think. This is yet another example of mismanagement.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

At what point can CIG claim that their Star Engine isn't the CryEngine anymore?

They can't. They got discount and licensing deal from CryTek on certain terms, one of them limiting them doing such shenanigans.

I wouldn't go so far and say they couldn't develop their own engine, but despite what they are doing it is CryTek IP, CryTek engine they are dealing with.

What's funny that redditors seems to be fans of 'Amazon will deal with it for us lol' idea there. They really don't understand what's going on with companies, IP and stuff.

 

[Viajero]

Unless I missed them I can’t find any thread on this over at spectrum. Probably rightfully so.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Legally? I don't think they can.

Even if they replaced 100% of the code, CryTek can say that's what their license allowed, and it is still a derivative of CryEngine and that their logos and other promotional agreements are still in place, as is the prohibition forbidding hem from switching engines.

It isnt even relevant: even if they convince a judge that SE isnt CE, that just means they admit to using a different again, which again is a breach of contract.

 

[Steve O B Have]

I dunno, those are the same investors who have shelled out over 7 million in their latest sale, after an extremely buggy and (I'm told) really limited release to a test server, with only minor patches during last two years before that. Almost all upvoted comments on the SC subreddit call CryTek copyright trolls and so on.

Until it resolves in arbitration/court there is no way to actually know for sure that Crytek have a basis for their challenge but the wording and content don't strike me as arbitrary or frivolous. They're pretty specific about their claims.

 

[Tippis]

Legally? I don't think they can.

Even if they replaced 100% of the code, CryTek can say that's what their license allowed, and it is still a derivative of CryEngine and that their logos and other promotional agreements are still in place, as is the prohibition forbidding hem from switching engines.

Yeah, if the contract actually says what Crytek claims, CIG has agreed to stick their head in a pretty nasty vice.

Either everything they've done has been done to CryEngine, even if it has been modified beyond all recognition, which means Crytek is owed a bunch cash because of contractual licensing fees. Or they've changed to a different engine, which means Crytek is owed a bunch of cash because of contractual penalties.

Whichever way they move, they'll get squeezed — the only way out is to manage to disprove the interpretation of the contract.

What's funny that redditors seems to be fans of 'Amazon will deal with it for us lol' idea there. They really don't understand what's going on with companies, IP and stuff.

Especially since, if anything, it could go the exact opposite way: Amazon going “you contributed what code… or should we say whose?” and then join in the punching because their codebase has now been tainted and needs to be vetted and purged (or just bought from Crytek… again). A licensee that forces the engine owner to re-buy the engine they thought they owned is not going to remain a licensee for long.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Yeah, if the contract actually says what Crytek claims, CIG has agreed to stick their head in a pretty nasty vice.

Either everything they've done has been done to CryEngine, even if it has been modified beyond all recognition, which means Crytek is owed a bunch cash because of contractual licensing fees. Or they've changed to a different engine, which means Crytek is owed a bunch of cash because of contractual penalties.

Whichever way they move, they'll get squeezed — the only way out is to manage to disprove the interpretation of the contract.

Considering initial work from CryTek was done pro bono (at least rumours say so), I suspect contract is what CryTek says it is.

 

[VidarSnipes]

Until it resolves in arbitration/court there is no way to actually know for sure that Crytek have a basis for their challenge but the wording and content don't strike me as arbitrary or frivolous. They're pretty specific about their claims.

And from what I've read, the law firm CryTek have recruited is so experienced in such cases their pencil-pushers go by the "John Wick" codename (disclaimer: the latter might be false).

 

[ianw]

So when is the SQ42 reveal - and the next ship sale?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Unless I missed them I can’t find any thread on this over at spectrum. Probably rightfully so.

As soon as that was served, there will have been a blanket order from Genuine Roberts himself to completely avoid mentioning it absolutely anywhere in his corporate empire.

Lawyers cost a lot of money, and for that they mostly tell you to shut up, for a very good reason.

 

[Cosmo]

Yeah, if the contract actually says what Crytek claims, CIG has agreed to stick their head in a pretty nasty vice.

Either everything they've done has been done to CryEngine, even if it has been modified beyond all recognition, which means Crytek is owed a bunch cash because of contractual licensing fees. Or they've changed to a different engine, which means Crytek is owed a bunch of cash because of contractual penalties.

Whichever way they move, they'll get squeezed — the only way out is to manage to disprove the interpretation of the contract.

Especially since, if anything, it could go the exact opposite way: Amazon going “you contributed what code… or should we say whose?” and then join in the punching because their codebase has now been tainted and needs to be vetted and purged (or just bought from Crytek… again). A licensee that forces the engine owner to re-buy the engine they thought they owned is not going to remain a licensee for long.

Silicon Knights had to pay about $4.45 million to Epic Games for the counterclaim. Lets say worst case is CIG has to pay Crytek $10 million? They should have more than enough to cover that. CIG will prob drag this lawsuit for as long as possible so the payment would be 3 to 5 years from now.

Erin Roberts said in June 2014: "We did an outright buyout of the engine last year and have the source code, so while we hope all the noise about Crytek blows over, as they are great partners and friends to the project, if the worse happened we would be ok, as we’ve already branched the engine and have a large team that is adding features and supporting it every day here at CIG. So even in the worst case scenario we should be fine, but obviously we hope it does not come to that."

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/2895381/#Comment_2895381

 

[Ian Skippy]

Silicon Knights had to pay about $4.45 million to Epic Games for the counterclaim. I think lets say worst case is CIG has to pay Crytek $10 million? They should have more than enough to cover that. CIG will prob drag this lawsuit for as long as possible so the payment would be 3 to 5 years from now.

That is not even close to the 'worst case scenario'. They claim 'total injuction'. If granted that means exit SC.

 

[ianw]

Lawyers cost a lot of money, and for that they mostly tell you to shut up, for a very good reason.

But don't forget Ortwin is probably on scene and dealing already - so he probably isn't charging travelling expenses.

keeps the costs down - just saying...

 

[Barking_Mad]

It's curious that they'd apparently make these decisions despite having Orwin as a lawyer, someone who worked for Crytek in this exact field. I suspect there might be more to it, although it's quite possibly just a continuation of the mess CIG creates for itself.

 

[ianw]

Also - apparently the D man has more info that overshadows the lawsuit.

It's only Wednesday - this can't be happening!

:O