They would have my sympathy.
Star Citizen Discussions v7
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
They would have my sympathy.
Holy crud that thread..
Why would anyone in their right mind want the SC fan base? For the ridiculous expectations? The toxicity?
Say, if they were a strugging dev house with little notable IPs... I'm jjust fantasizing about ways that we ever get to play a released Squadron 42 that is maybe, potentially, half decent and not a potentially unreleased, delayed forever, ambitious but failing due to being ahead of its time brainchild of Chris Roberts.
It's not even without precedence for a struggling project to come out. After all, Duke Nukem Forever was finished by a different studio and was released. Let's just not talk about quality, ok?
Last edited:
Extinction level event - like a big meteorite made out of Crytekonium or something.
And they keep mentioning Derek Smart even though none of this has anything to do with him. [wacko]
Last edited:
There's none so blind as those that don't want to see.
There's a certain beauty in the fact that the engine that produced the only thing of note in Star Citizen (the graphics) could be the thing that brings the development to a halt. What's more the copyright infringement could result in nobody being able to see those graphics, ever again.
I need a bigger popcorn machine.
He did report on it first though, I suppose they could be salty about that?
Ahh, that makes sense - thanks. Love the Crytekonium. [haha]
He's illustrating how the fibre doesn't quite reach the rack..Or imagine the hearing-impaired people trying to decode what he's trying to say...ok, I'll see myself out
http://share.gifyoutube.com/KrWR38.gif
it's not like admitting Derek Smart was right comes easily to them, and blaming him for everything is an old habit now.
Say, if they were a strugging dev house with little notable IPs... I'm jjust fantasizing about ways that we ever get to play a released Squadron 42 that is maybe, potentially, half decent and not a potentially unreleased, delayed forever, ambitious but failing due to being ahead of its time brainchild of Chris Roberts.
It's not even without precedence for a struggling project to come out. After all, Duke Nukem Forever was finished by a different studio and was released. Let's just not talk about quality, ok?
I don't see very much likelihood of an escape for CIG and the rest of that corporate group, given the vast majority of the materials they are developing will either be directly or derived works from CryEngine - exceptions might be art assets, but even models sometimes have bespoke animations and features which are hooked into and rely on the underlying engine to "exist" and function. So even if the defendants have cash to pay a settlement, it would be up to the plaintiff's charity to allow the project to continue using their IP.
Of prime concern is the requested injunction, as that is normally a court/judge granted mechanism to protect any value the plaintiff may have in the defendant and its assets (regardless of any judgement(s) from the proceedings), by freezing the defendant's activity. Its not certain the court will grant the injunction, but if it does (which can occur almost immediately and before the court hearings) then CIG (and I assume the corporate group) will have to "down tools" whilst the court proceedings are dealt with.
One likely knock on effect from an injunction (and possibly the filing itself) is that Her Majesty's bankers will likely step in to protect their debenture/loan collateral, which will place whichever entity that is with, in receivership. Keep an eye on the London Gazette for that. However, the pulling of that trigger will occur before formal notices can be seen by the public, as the debenture holder/lender will try and draw up a Statement of Affairs to value the company and make a decision about how they wish to proceed to protect their interest. That means suited gentlemen walking around the defendant's offices surveying and digging into whatever accounting records are available (I used to do this in a previous life).
Sadly the backers and recovering their investments will be at the end of a very long queue, if/when all this starts to wind up and whilst I personally feel the whales should know what risks they were taking, I know of minors, who have invested £100's or more when they could really not afford it.
If you were to put 'SC' into a basket that basket would contain "the project, the engine, and a debt to consumers of over $100M". There is no obvious way that the project could be transferred without someone underwriting that debt.
Besides which, Crytek don't want or need a project - they need cash.
And with this, CIG can pull out the Trump card: "You want cash? Bwhahahaa, who told you we have any? Fake news! Fake news! Buy an Idris!"
I'm not sure what to say. It feels like another massive spodge up by a management team that work hard on making massive spodge ups as efficiently as possible.
Hmm, remember when DS said they went over to Lumberyard 100%?
And according to CIG it only took a few days since their CryEngine was very similar to Lumberyards CryEngine version?
So if they indeed DID port everything over to Lumberyard, taking their tweaked code to to Lumberyard and ditching the rest of CryEngine - What demand can CryTek have?
It's not like they can demand payment from the usage of an engine if they have switched to another engine and another license?
So, if they truly did move 100% to Lumberyard, and porting their own code to Lumberyard and then calling their Lumberyard+Code = Starengine what applies to the below then?
Point 36 2.1.2
"Contained promises that the defendant would not utilize another game engine"
Ok, a promise, not a written contract that OBLIGATE them to do this. This means they have the right to switch engine.
Point 37 2.1.2
"Defendant have a license to only EXCLUSIVELY embed CryEngine in the game"
Except that does not really apply if they have switched engine to Lumberyard. Or is CryTek saying that ONLY their engine is allowed to be used and want to FORCE them to use the engine?
And if they cancel their license and switch engine, should there not then be a clause that they are BOUND by the contract forever? Sounds more like CryTek thinks they own the game itself.
Part of revenue per unit sold
This might still apply since switching engine should really not be dependant on engine, it should at least be for each game package sold until the switch. It could be argued if ship sales would count as game packages, I doubt that but I would not be surprised if an argument was made.
Breach of contract in regards to bugfixes
Well, up to the point of their switch CIG should be liable to follow up on those if those bugs affected their own product (i cannot really see the logic in fixing bugs non-essential to their game)
Split of game
Here's what im wondering. What part about splitting the game in different chunks affect them negatively except for a (technical) breach of contract? Revenue? Could it be that they ONLY gain income from "Star Citizen" game packages sold and not "SQ42" game packages sold? They claim they have been financially harmed and that it would normally require an upfront payment and then substantial royalty.
The issue that arises is that SQ42 was part of the whole Star Citizen game from the start so it should not be a surprise for CryTek since (according to them) they created the demo and indeed, SQ42 was rather plastered all over the screen at the end of the demo not to mention also within the stretch goals in terms of voice acting so they knew SQ42 was part of Star Citizen.
One could indeed argue that it is ONE game since (AFAIK) the same launcher and game assets are used in both games. But, if they receive only revenue from SQ42 then i can see their point IF cig decided not to compensate them on those separate sales. I imagine their claim would be weaker if Star Citizen was the main game and SQ42 sold as an add-on DLC.
Point 21 - Does not include any content marketed and sold separately
Now, THIS can be a smoking gun depending on how the contract is worded regardless of engine. First it states that the game should not include any content being marketed and sold separately, but then they add "such as content "sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game"".
Ok, the first part depending on what is written could include every ship sale ever done from day 1 as they are marketed separately as "concept sales" but they could also be seen as part of star citizen and thus marketed WITHIN star citizen. They are however still sold separately from the game but marketed as part of the game.
Point 25 - Defendant split the product without gaining a CryTek License for this
Well, they moved to Lumberyard and did they not do that BEFORE they decided to sell SQ42 separately? Why would they even NEED a license if they have already moved to lumberyard.
Point 39 - Due to breach CryTek has not gained the favourable attention it would otherwise have gained from the defendant's use of CryEngine in Star Citizen
I would be more wary about negative attention due to the controversy around CIG and the multiple delays but sure, let's call it favourable attention. And if CIG finds that the engine is not up to snuff and NEEDS to switch engine, would you rather have the crap attention that the end result are bad reviews and blame on CryTek that their engine is not good enough...
Conclusion
While i think they have some points that will be interesting to see how they play out but the overall reason i get from this is that they are that they got dumped for Lumberyard and no longer receive any revenues from CIG.
And let's say they received royalties from EVERY sale they did, not only packages I imagine the cost for CIG would have been a headache.
It feels like a cash grab from a company in severe decline.
And according to CIG it only took a few days since their CryEngine was very similar to Lumberyards CryEngine version?
So if they indeed DID port everything over to Lumberyard, taking their tweaked code to to Lumberyard and ditching the rest of CryEngine - What demand can CryTek have?
It's not like they can demand payment from the usage of an engine if they have switched to another engine and another license?
So, if they truly did move 100% to Lumberyard, and porting their own code to Lumberyard and then calling their Lumberyard+Code = Starengine what applies to the below then?
Point 36 2.1.2
"Contained promises that the defendant would not utilize another game engine"
Ok, a promise, not a written contract that OBLIGATE them to do this. This means they have the right to switch engine.
Point 37 2.1.2
"Defendant have a license to only EXCLUSIVELY embed CryEngine in the game"
Except that does not really apply if they have switched engine to Lumberyard. Or is CryTek saying that ONLY their engine is allowed to be used and want to FORCE them to use the engine?
And if they cancel their license and switch engine, should there not then be a clause that they are BOUND by the contract forever? Sounds more like CryTek thinks they own the game itself.
Part of revenue per unit sold
This might still apply since switching engine should really not be dependant on engine, it should at least be for each game package sold until the switch. It could be argued if ship sales would count as game packages, I doubt that but I would not be surprised if an argument was made.
Breach of contract in regards to bugfixes
Well, up to the point of their switch CIG should be liable to follow up on those if those bugs affected their own product (i cannot really see the logic in fixing bugs non-essential to their game)
Split of game
Here's what im wondering. What part about splitting the game in different chunks affect them negatively except for a (technical) breach of contract? Revenue? Could it be that they ONLY gain income from "Star Citizen" game packages sold and not "SQ42" game packages sold? They claim they have been financially harmed and that it would normally require an upfront payment and then substantial royalty.
The issue that arises is that SQ42 was part of the whole Star Citizen game from the start so it should not be a surprise for CryTek since (according to them) they created the demo and indeed, SQ42 was rather plastered all over the screen at the end of the demo not to mention also within the stretch goals in terms of voice acting so they knew SQ42 was part of Star Citizen.
One could indeed argue that it is ONE game since (AFAIK) the same launcher and game assets are used in both games. But, if they receive only revenue from SQ42 then i can see their point IF cig decided not to compensate them on those separate sales. I imagine their claim would be weaker if Star Citizen was the main game and SQ42 sold as an add-on DLC.
Point 21 - Does not include any content marketed and sold separately
Now, THIS can be a smoking gun depending on how the contract is worded regardless of engine. First it states that the game should not include any content being marketed and sold separately, but then they add "such as content "sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game"".
Ok, the first part depending on what is written could include every ship sale ever done from day 1 as they are marketed separately as "concept sales" but they could also be seen as part of star citizen and thus marketed WITHIN star citizen. They are however still sold separately from the game but marketed as part of the game.
Point 25 - Defendant split the product without gaining a CryTek License for this
Well, they moved to Lumberyard and did they not do that BEFORE they decided to sell SQ42 separately? Why would they even NEED a license if they have already moved to lumberyard.
Point 39 - Due to breach CryTek has not gained the favourable attention it would otherwise have gained from the defendant's use of CryEngine in Star Citizen
I would be more wary about negative attention due to the controversy around CIG and the multiple delays but sure, let's call it favourable attention. And if CIG finds that the engine is not up to snuff and NEEDS to switch engine, would you rather have the crap attention that the end result are bad reviews and blame on CryTek that their engine is not good enough...
Conclusion
While i think they have some points that will be interesting to see how they play out but the overall reason i get from this is that they are that they got dumped for Lumberyard and no longer receive any revenues from CIG.
And let's say they received royalties from EVERY sale they did, not only packages I imagine the cost for CIG would have been a headache.
It feels like a cash grab from a company in severe decline.
