That title frame is glorious lol
Ship sales, and now mafia-esque protection rackets
Last edited:
Star Citizen Discussions v7
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
That title frame is glorious lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MzzuiQVTDw for Leonard French's livestream just starting to discuss this.
BBC mentions an injunction included - against further use of CryEngine - that's a whole new level right?
I could see backers stumping up $75k to catch damages but an engine rewrite?? Actually, I can see quite a few at least trying to suck that up too.
Last edited:
Would an injunction against further use of CryEngine be in any shape or form useful against them using Lumberyard which is owned by another company?
And Squadron 42 is clearly seen in the stretchgoals for voice actors.
Star Citizen is the game
- SQ42 is a storyline and game within Star Citizen
I would go so far and call SQ42 a DLC since it's part of SC.
It is not for 75k, the 75k number was put in just to make sure it goes to federal court. It is most likely for millions. A large enough number that CIG didn't just pay them off before this went public.
Last edited:
Yes because it is not actually using Lumberyard, as per Ben Parry's image.
Also most of the assets and code was developed under the old license, which is covered in the injunction. Not that I expect an injunction to happen.
If this happens then it'll be very interesting to see what engine is currently being used: Lumberyard, Cryengine with the logo pulled off, or an unholy combination of the 2.
I would really not like to be an engineer in cases 2 or 3.
This suit is going to reveal so many interesting things. Which engine are they using? What are their financials? How hard will they try to settle to hide those 2 reveals? Are they capable of settling?
Popcorn!
https://www.cinemablend.com/games/1...ures-are-not-having-an-impact-on-star-citizen
From the description they gave here they kept some of the Cryengine parts and ripped out the rest and then merged that with Lumberyard.
The question is then perhaps, are the Cryengine parts they have left basically the same thing that are part of Lumberyard and can CryTek in that case claim that they are using Cryengine or are they using Lumberyard that might utilize identical code.
Except, depending on how one looks at it, they use Cryengine 3.7 and 3.8 and then use Lumberyard. I wonder how different the 3.7 and 3.8 Cryengine code is from Lumberyards Cryengine code.
Maybe. I'm listening to this guy reading through the writ ..
Strikes me, a potentially sticky wicket, what proportion of CIG's funding has been raised on the back of CryTech's copyright? That could be potentially quite a bit.
edit: on top of that it's buggy, late etc etc. - might be looking at reputational damage to CryTech's (Amazon's?) IP?
Last edited:
Yeah. I'd assume that assets created in base CE would be relatively straight forward to migrate to the same pre-fork version of LY (although not trivial, for sure, as it'd be a lot work and have a lot of dependencies). It's where CE has been modded and not refactored in LY that the real fun would be.
DS is in live chat there tearing them apart ......White Knights&Shillizens are in full retreat........pure gold......
Last edited:
Even if the engine is identical everything will need to be migrated & recompiled. I don't have any experience with CE, but even writing DLLs in Visual Studio the binaries are signed by the compiler.
EDIT: So, by looking at the binaries, you could probably tell whether the file was compiled by CE or LY.
Last edited:
I'm fairly sure (as 'not-a-lawyer') that asking for such an injunction is normal for any case involving intellectual property rights. Basically, if someone is selling something they don't have the rights to (which is what Crytek allege) you ask the courts to make them stop. Not complicated really.
As for the $75k, I think we've already established that this isn't the sum Crytek want in damages, it is a minimum figure, stated purely to establish that the court concerned has jurisdiction. Crytek wouldn't be engaging a law firm like Skadden for a dispute over $75k.
It's odd though.
- They had a licence to use Cryengine in a specific way to create Star Citizen
- They ALSO purchased a FULL license in case Cryengine went under
- Would not the FULL license invalidate some of the demands from CryTek?
Unless they rewrote the same binaries and compiled them into LY - at least that way it would look like LY code.
EDIT: or the code they LIKED in LY was identical from Cryengine and they merely ported their own code to LY.
Would it really matter WHERE the code was compiled? I mean, if Lumberyard still have original Cryengine code then SC would be using Cryengine either way if they want to draw it that far.
Last edited:
Not necessarily.
A full license won't include any of CIG's IP - they still own the rights to the engine. The "full" license probably means that CIG have full access to all of the engine's source code.
CIG can't give this engine away to 3rd parties, and the "full" license might only have covered a single product (SC so no SQ42).
A full license is still a license.