Oddly enough the greymarket seems to be trying to shift stuff at a discount, and no-ones buying. You may pick up an absolute bargain*.
*obviously I use the term bargain to mean a jpeg even more worthless than it was yesterday
Star Citizen Discussions v7
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
Oddly enough the greymarket seems to be trying to shift stuff at a discount, and no-ones buying. You may pick up an absolute bargain*.
*obviously I use the term bargain to mean a jpeg even more worthless than it was yesterday
From what I recall satisfaction of a debenture/secured loan on a company has to be filed with Companies House, as does the original loan documentation. Many of the filings there however have been late, so it maybe that the satisfaction notice has not yet been filed.
Ignoring the rest of this post, since I suspect that Skadden's man on the job (see https://www.skadden.com/professionals/p/pak-james-y) has a better grasp of relevant law than the average 'citizen' or 'goon' (and incidentally will be in possession of more in the way of facts), I feel I have to comment on this, since I've seen the same point made elsewhere:
This could well be true. Possibly there is little future for Crytek as a going concern. But so what? If they are legally entitled to 'cash', they will grab it. Not just because they can, but because they are quite likely legally obliged to. If they are going under, and they have unpaid debts, they are obliged to pay them off by realising funds in any way open to them. If they have shareholders, likewise they have a fiduciary duty to serve their shareholders best interests. That is how the system works. Crytek's motivation for suing CIG is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether they have a valid case.
This could well be true. Possibly there is little future for Crytek as a going concern. But so what? If they are legally entitled to 'cash', they will grab it. Not just because they can, but because they are quite likely legally obliged to. If they are going under, and they have unpaid debts, they are obliged to pay them off by realising funds in any way open to them. If they have shareholders, likewise they have a fiduciary duty to serve their shareholders best interests. That is how the system works. Crytek's motivation for suing CIG is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether they have a valid case.
Last edited:
Hyper-inflation drive confirmed!
Current state on r/SC: denial.
"But CIG bought crytek in 2014!"
"Amazon will wipe the floor with puny CT!"
"CT is just a desperate troll!"
"Skadden will take any claim as long as they get paid the hour, sad!"
"Worst case scenario we just crowdfund the $75,000!"
Meanwhile many, many people are starting to become skeptical. Critical posts are upvoted, and the hard-core brigade who wants to shut down all debate is losing ground.
"But CIG bought crytek in 2014!"
"Amazon will wipe the floor with puny CT!"
"CT is just a desperate troll!"
"Skadden will take any claim as long as they get paid the hour, sad!"
"Worst case scenario we just crowdfund the $75,000!"
Meanwhile many, many people are starting to become skeptical. Critical posts are upvoted, and the hard-core brigade who wants to shut down all debate is losing ground.
this point is not huge enough IMHO
because of this revelation, I think KS should enforce a rule that KS fund seekers are legally bound to produce their own campaign material.
because the way it is now, what CIG did feel morally wrong if not outright deceptive.
What im wondering is, did they not get paid to create this demo? I have a hard time seeing them doing it for free and gambling on the result of the kickstarter.
After all, they did not formalize their relationship until later and then entering into a game licensing agreement.
*sweet sweet retribution* /dance
Thinking about it a bit more, it's not that the demo was created by a 3rd party but that RSI didn't disclose this.
Agreed.
I have absolutely no idea, but if they engaged in a lot of this sort of nonsense then it's easy to see why Crytek ended up in financial difficulty!
Agreed.
I have absolutely no idea, but if they engaged in a lot of this sort of nonsense then it's easy to see why Crytek ended up in financial difficulty!
It's certainly crystallising out some of the core SC fan madness https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...eritless_lawsuit_that_we_will_defend/dr8b3d6/
I don't think they know other games exist. It's just thread after thread of conspiracy theories and religious level faith that their game is the one and only true game and all other games shall fall at it's feet.
Dunno about anyone else but it makes for very uncomfortable reading for me. Many truly bonkers theories abound and some really poisoned minds are getting it all out there ("They're just jealous! Tall poppy syndrome! This is the true face of socialism!")
Does all make it rather clear why the community haven't managed to hold CIG to account at all though.
I don't think they know other games exist. It's just thread after thread of conspiracy theories and religious level faith that their game is the one and only true game and all other games shall fall at it's feet.
Dunno about anyone else but it makes for very uncomfortable reading for me. Many truly bonkers theories abound and some really poisoned minds are getting it all out there ("They're just jealous! Tall poppy syndrome! This is the true face of socialism!")
Does all make it rather clear why the community haven't managed to hold CIG to account at all though.
CryTek had tons of money during that period - and they burned trough it all due of having multiple teams failing to deliver finished products.
So yes, it is actually believable that CryTek spend considerable resources to help SC with their shiny demos. Because most likely contract gave something back for them in return (most likely their engine tuned for such games as Squadron 42).
I suspect though - pure speculation warning - that they didn't know about Chris plans to do Star Citizen.
It is worth to remember that CryEngine imho was fully capable to do Squadron 42. It wasn't ready for SC.
Basically this. Way CryTek got to this point does not matter. Contract is contract. Whatever admins CryTek at this point are required by law to enforce contracts and extract value from them - at the benefit of shareholders.
However, if you even take away this reasoning, CryTek still has solid grounds to sue. I have seen IP cases for things just being somehow similar. We are talking about non-disputable fact CIG used CryTek IP and didn't honor their agreement which allowed them to do so. Period.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
There is a big many things in the Crytek paper that are still unclear, like the one you mention. What was the exact commercial/contractual relationship between the parties on those initial demos/concepts?
Another element that is still unclear is the nature of those "promises" Crytek mentions about exclusivity etc. I am not a lawyer but my line of work is very close to our procurement activities and rarely have I seen contractual language using the word "promises" in it. Usually the closest thing to a "promise" in contract world is "best endeavours" or similar which are figures relatively standardized in my industry, and which dont have the same obligation/committment nature that other basic clauses have.
Last edited:
Good points.
Star Citizen as originally pitched, if delivered on time & in budget, could have been a real success for Crytek.
I'm not sure that CR had actual "plans" for Star Citizen as is until the money started pouring in. You could quite convincingly argue that he doesn't have a "plan" up to this day!
Star Citizen announcement followed few days after ED popped up. It certainly wasn't central focus at the beginning of KS.
I suspect this is what's at heart of this lawsuit. Contract violations aside, breaking promise of working together with CryTek and throwing them under the bus while they had financial difficulties might not fly well with jury.
There is a great deal that is unclear. And I suspect that much of it may remain so, even if this gets to court. I doubt however that a law firm like Skadden would have knocked the filing together in ten minutes, using random wording just to sound impressive. They presumably believe that when they use words like 'promise', they have something to back them up. I am not a lawyer either, but I've seen enough of them in action to know they generally chose their words carefully. That is a large part of what they are paid for.
Best to email customer support to see if the pack now includes a front row seat to the trial.
Yea, why would even Crytek do something for free, it's not exactly standard business practice to spend 3 million dollars on a whim with no security or written agreement and "hope" for a kickstarter that might not even succeed.
So at one hand we have Crytek saying it cost them "significant time and money" to make the demo and on the other we have CIG saying it cost them 3 million dollar to make the demo.
If Crytek gave away 3 million dollars on a kickstarter demo i would question their sanity...
I know website, shmebsite, but here: https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1637
promise
1) n. a firm agreement to perform an act, refrain from acting or make a payment or delivery. In contract law, if the parties exchange promises, each promise is "consideration" (a valuable item) for the other promise. Failure to fulfill a promise in a contract is a breach of the contract, for which the other party may sue for performance and/or damages. 2) v. to make a firm agreement to act, refrain from acting or make a payment or delivery.
promise
1) n. a firm agreement to perform an act, refrain from acting or make a payment or delivery. In contract law, if the parties exchange promises, each promise is "consideration" (a valuable item) for the other promise. Failure to fulfill a promise in a contract is a breach of the contract, for which the other party may sue for performance and/or damages. 2) v. to make a firm agreement to act, refrain from acting or make a payment or delivery.