Star Citizen Discussions v7

[lysan]

If posted already delete pls - some YT guy that I watch invited one and only Derek Smart for a SC discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihw8VAqhYHA


btw, Derek is like gone from this forums, haven't see any comments from him in our SC topic for some time

I think he was banned....

 

[Cosmo]

Worth watching, from about 4 mins in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MzzuiQVTDw

Or skip to 29 mins for the more detailed run down of what he thinks.

Lots of legal lingo. He's pretty calm about CIG being taken to the cleaners by Skadden.

 

[Dooguk]

Lots of legal lingo. He's pretty calm about CIG being taken to the cleaners by Skadden.

Why! should he be worried or something?

 

[frostypaw]

btw, Derek is like gone from this forums, haven't see any comments from him in our SC topic for some time

Him posting is pretty much crack to the crazed fans and it renders the thread unbearable for ages, so this is a blessing. He's not banned, just being considerate. This is one of the few places you can discuss it without the horde descending so I'm glad of the help to keep it that way.

However legend says that if you say his name three times then turn around and touch your toes etc....

 

[xyphic]

- Can Crytek claim LY is Cryengine due to source code.

I doubt that Crytek can claim anything regards Lumberyard, as it sounds like they signed over all rights to it to Amazon. However, that's really unclear.

- How distant is LY from Cryengine in code

It started out a point-version above that which CIG branched from. It's quite a lot further along as Amazon have been making continual updates to it. CIG have already stated that they based it on the same branch of Lumberyard as they were using in CryEngine, and pull in some of the newer features as required.

- Can Crytek forbid Amazon to allow CIG to use code.

See above: totally unclear as to how the inclusion of Crytek code in Lumberyard would affect an injunction.

- Can CIG easily move their code to LY.

It depends. Let's assume that Crytek kept the source for CryEngine in an SCM, we'll use git as an example. If so, it contains all the history of all the files including the version that CIG branched from. Now how easy the port is depends on whether Amazon were also given the history of the source code. If so, then it's trivial. Assuming they start at commit n, and are now at commit n+10000 they have two choices: 1) they can generate a single patch that encompasses all those commits; 2) they can generate patches for each commit. They switch to commit n of the Lumberyard engine (which will be the same as commit n of CryEngine) and apply their patch(es). Voila, they've successfully migrated to Lumberyard. Their SCM might even make the patching step trivial.

If there's a requirement that to be officially under the "Lumberyard" banner they need to be on the initial Lumberyard point release, at this point they would merge the changes into their repository and manually resolve any conflicts that arise.

If they *don't* have the history, it's a bit more of a headache. First, CIG would revert back to commit n of CryEngine. They would then copy across the initial Lumberyard commit, and finally merge in all the changes they made in their CryEngine branch. If they're lucky, none of what they did will touch any of the same files that were updated in the Lumberyard point release. If they're unlucky, some will and they might have to do a bit of manual conflict resolution. It's probably not a huge job.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Now I know nothing about being sued by game engine developers, but if I did, and somebody asked me

"Well, what have you got to say about that?"

My very best answer would be

"No comment"

Or... "The case is in the hands of our lawyers."

 

[Dooguk]

Or... "The case is in the hands of our lawyers."

That was my second best answer. [smile]

 

[n4p0l3on]

Now I know nothing about being sued by game engine developers, but if I did, and somebody asked me

"Well, what have you got to say about that?"

My very best answer would be

"No comment"

And yet we have CIG issued a rather arrogant dismissal comment regarding their case to the media that actually indirectly lead to them admitted their guilt over what they are accused for.

 

[Osmanthus]

Derek's just claimed that Coutts is doing/about to do something.

 

[Dooguk]

Derek's just claimed that Coutts is doing/about to do something.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/9...0238&pagenumber=3094&perpage=40#post479345049

It's all kicking off [haha]

 

[Thargon]

I doubt that Crytek can claim anything regards Lumberyard, as it sounds like they signed over all rights to it to Amazon. However, that's really unclear.


It started out a point-version above that which CIG branched from. It's quite a lot further along as Amazon have been making continual updates to it. CIG have already stated that they based it on the same branch of Lumberyard as they were using in CryEngine, and pull in some of the newer features as required.


See above: totally unclear as to how the inclusion of Crytek code in Lumberyard would affect an injunction.


It depends. Let's assume that Crytek kept the source for CryEngine in an SCM, we'll use git as an example. If so, it contains all the history of all the files including the version that CIG branched from. Now how easy the port is depends on whether Amazon were also given the history of the source code. If so, then it's trivial. Assuming they start at commit n, and are now at commit n+10000 they have two choices: 1) they can generate a single patch that encompasses all those commits; 2) they can generate patches for each commit. They switch to commit n of the Lumberyard engine (which will be the same as commit n of CryEngine) and apply their patch(es). Voila, they've successfully migrated to Lumberyard. Their SCM might even make the patching step trivial.

If there's a requirement that to be officially under the "Lumberyard" banner they need to be on the initial Lumberyard point release, at this point they would merge the changes into their repository and manually resolve any conflicts that arise.

If they *don't* have the history, it's a bit more of a headache. First, CIG would revert back to commit n of CryEngine. They would then copy across the initial Lumberyard commit, and finally merge in all the changes they made in their CryEngine branch. If they're lucky, none of what they did will touch any of the same files that were updated in the Lumberyard point release. If they're unlucky, some will and they might have to do a bit of manual conflict resolution. It's probably not a huge job.

I think the outcome of all this will be more transparency. We may even get details as to the source code itself, and what the hell have they been doing all this time. We might get juicy details like all the engine rewrites, mismanagement, changes and the cluster- with the source code.

We might get details of what they've been doing with the engine exactly, what parts are Crytek, what parts are "propietry" (spelling?) - like their so called StarEngine changes. I'm not sure how much of this is patent-trolling, and how much is actually truth, although I'm tending to side with Crytek on this one, with some of their lawsuit points.

However, their claim of SQ42 being separate from Star Citizen is a bit off, so I'm not sure that will be defendable or upheld.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/9...0238&pagenumber=3094&perpage=40#post479345049

Ahh, to be expected. Just as I posted just above. (post #8044)

 

[Zetta]

From the article on massivelyop.com

 

[Asp Explorer]

Fresh lulzbuckets for everyone

The entertainment never ceases. When I bought my Freelancer I never envisioned just how many giggles it would provide.

 

[McGlashan]

However, their claim of SQ42 being separate from Star Citizen is a bit off, so I'm not sure that will be defendable or upheld.

It's a bit difficult to claim otherwise when they're sold as separate entities. Whether or not they share the same foundations doesn't really change that, it would be like saying all CryEngine games only count as one game.
I'm more interested in where all the money has gone, than what horrendous things CIG has done to the engine.

 

[Ian Skippy]

However, their claim of SQ42 being separate from Star Citizen is a bit off, so I'm not sure that will be defendable or upheld.

Considering CIG literally claims they are separate games, and have sold them as separate games, and registered them as separate games, I dont think it will be that hard to proof.

 

[Thargon]

Considering CIG literally claims they are separate games, and have sold them as separate games, and registered them as separate games, I dont think it will be that hard to proof.

You've got a point. Although I think the intention was that it would be one-universe at the Kickstarter stage?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Fresh lulzbuckets for everyone

The entertainment never ceases. When I bought my Freelancer I never envisioned just how many giggles it would provide.

The outside of game content is amaze balls.

 

[dayrth]

IANAL, but if there is a new jpeg sale to celebrate next week's event, what do we suppose the ship's name might be?

Is 'The Defendant' already taken?
.

The Litigator has a nice ring to it

Dam. Ninjad by Snarfbuckle. This thread moves too darn fast.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You've got a point. Although I think the intention was that it would be one-universe at the Kickstarter stage?

Well, they take place in the same universe. Kinda like you can take your ME1 save into ME2: Sq42 was supposed to allow you to bring your character into SC. But in no way does that mean you can just take the engine you licensed for SC and use it for free in Sq42.

 

[Thargon]

Well, they take place in the same universe. Kinda like you can take your ME1 save into ME2: Sq42 was supposed to allow you to bring your character into SC. But in no way does that mean you can just take the engine you licensed for SC and use it for free in Sq42.

Depends on what your definition of "Star Citizen" is.

To me, Star Citizen is the overriding parent entity for the entire IP.