The Star Citizen Thread V10

That looks insane. I also couldn't help notice how much better CP2077's vibe was compared with the stale hubs in SC. It also made me wonder how 'Next Era' is going to look for ED, because FD has their work cut out for them too if they want to tackle atmos. The current ice planets look incredibly dated...
CP is on pre-sale now, but still 10 months before you can download and install it.
 
This x 1000. The Wing Commander games were terrible and it staggers me to this day that people remember them so fondly.

As for the rest about IP theft, I am not in the least bit surprised and shows his moral compass is completely lacking and therefore primed to take advantage of the gullible.
Why so cynical? At least his zero G space bulldozer concept in this movie was truly original.


134341


Perhaps even unique. History doesn't appear to recall any other director in the film industry who sought to copy this bit of avant garde ingenuity to date :geek:

Unprecedented zero G space bulldozers, to non Newtonian fluid mechanics driven space swimming pools, toilets, and sinks. CR may be a horrifically flawed Homo Sapiens. But you have to admit he has no peer where the school of hand wavium physics are concerned. :giggle:
 
Why so cynical? At least his zero G space bulldozer concept in this movie was truly original.

Perhaps even unique. History doesn't appear to recall any other director in the film industry who sought to copy this bit of avant garde ingenuity to date :geek:

Unprecedented zero G space bulldozers, to non Newtonian fluid mechanics driven space swimming pools, toilets, and sinks. CR may be a horrifically flawed Homo Sapiens. But you have to admit he has no peer where the school of hand wavium physics are concerned. :giggle:
Also no quasars just outside our solar system (and this is the guy doing the BDSSE).
 
Re legal shenanigans latest, the Gard Freq guys got you covered:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/436024882?sr=a&t=3231s
This is getting juicy again.

Their postscript chat about discovery made me think: If Cry really are out for blood more than money, as they claim, and they were to find a smoking gun during discovery... It's possible they won't just settle and keep it all behind closed doors.

Drama. That's what I'm saying. There's been an uptick in drama potential ;)

---

Long way to go though. Much unseemly wrestling required in the middle. Was expecting it all to collapse in a tedious choke hold as it was. Nice to see a new challenger bound into the ring and smack someone with a metal chair ;)
 
Last edited:
Can we get a TL;DL? A bit busy cooking a curry.
  • Ortwin seems to have forgotten some key punctuation. Purely by accident. Developing & selling SQ42 as a separate game may still be an issue. (Previously CIG claimed only at the point of launching the game from a non-SC launcher would they be culpable of the above. Seems they are separate clauses though).
  • CIG's own lawyer's lang seems to have been used against them, saying Cryengine code is in the game (?)
  • The new lawyers are cheaper, so that throws the bond valuation off. (Plus something about 2mil being a suspiciously made-up valuation).
  • Crytek say they're out for justice more than money.
  • They claim the 'score' is kinda 1:1 now, because they got CIG to give them the code fixes post-litigation. So the case isn't a landslide for CIG as claimed, making the grounds for bond shakier still.
  • GuardFreq guy suspects Crytek & Skadden parted ways because Crytek really do want blood, won't have wanted to agree on a target settlement figure, annoying Skadden who'll just want the cash pot at the end of the rainbow.
  • GuardFreq guy is impressed with the new plucky little lawyers. Thinks they landed blows, although glossed over Crytek's financial stability regarding the bond.
  • Says ultimately in the judge's hands now though. She may still push for bond, but there seems to be claims that require discovery now. (If bond required will be a test of Crytek's thirst for blood).

And some other stuff.

BUM

(But Understand MyfriendthatIamnotalawyer).
 
Last edited:
Good geek-out with pull quotes on SA:


Re: coming out swinging;
quote:
While CIG may yearn to stop using the CryEngine in order to avoid the requirements of the GLA, it did not do so. In fact, CIG’s bond motion is inextricably entwined with its contention that it “switched” from the CryEngine to the Lumberyard Engine. Yet, CIG’s own nuanced statements indicate that CIG did not actually replace the CryEngine code embedded in the game with the Lumberyard Engine code. Instead, the “switch” suggested by CIG was nothing more than CIG electing to enter anew license agreement with Amazon whereby CIG apparently licensed the CryEngine—for a second time.

CIG’s apparent decision to take a second license does not render its agreement with Crytek null and void. At least as long as CIG is using the CryEngine code, it is bound by the terms of the GLA whether it calls the code the CryEngine or the Lumberyard Engine. This thread that underlies many of CIG’s arguments, once pulled, will unravel CIG’s premature claims of victory and will lead to Crytek meeting many if not all of its objectives in this litigation.
And, regarding the bond;

quote:
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1030provides that a defendant may move to require the plaintiff to post a bond where “the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and [] there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1030. Here, CIG posits that it will be entitled, under paragraph 10.8 of the GLA,to an award (i.e., judgment) of attorneys’ fees and costs. Paragraph 10.8 limits such awards only to a prevailing party. CIG suggests that if it prevails on some claims or if Crytek is not awarded a large monetary award, then CIG is a prevailing party. This is not how a prevailing party is defined in cases such as this, and CIG has done virtually none of the analysis that would be required to show even a reasonable possibility of who willbe a prevailing party in this action, if anyone.
[...]

quote:
CIG provides none of this analysis. It has not considered or discussed the actual relief sought by Crytek. It has not even attempted to identify or discuss Crytek’s litigation objectives and Crytek’s chances of achieving those objectives.It has not considered the impact of other relevant facts, such as the fact that Crytek has already secured CIG’s delivery of its bug fixes as a result of this lawsuit.
That last line is actually quite telling, but part of the 'repair of injuries' attempt that's intended to sway the court in making it an honest mistake that they didn't actually do it before the lawsuit. This is actually quite weak, IMO.

quote:
As an initial matter, there appears to be a significant disconnect between the declaration evidence CIG submitted in support of its motion, and the arguments made in the motion itself. As CIG acknowledges, it developed Star Citizen and Squadron 42 using Crytek’s CryEngine video game development platform. Dkt. 57-2 (Freyermuth Declaration), at ¶ 7-8. It did so under the terms of the GLA dated November 20, 2012. Id. On April 30, 2016, CIG obtained another license to the CryEngine embedded in Star Citizen from Amazon in addition to rights to an Amazon game engine known as Lumberyard.

Id.at 9.In its brief, CIG describes taking this second license as a“switch” to the Lumberyard engine. Dkt. 57-1, at 3. CIG further argues in its brief that “Crytek’s code will no longer be in use.” Id. at 13.In contrast, Mr. Freyermuth’s actual declaration statements do not say any such thing: “Amazon granted CIG a license to use in Star Citizen and Squadron 42 not only Lumberyard, but also the version of CryEngine that was then embedded in the games’ source code. Following execution of the Amazon license, CIG began developing the games under the Amazon license. When CIG releases Squadron 42 to the public, the game engine source code will be licensed under this Amazon agreement, not the GLA.” Dkt. 57-2, at ¶ 9
(Their emphasis)

quote:
Mr.Freyermuth did not testify that the CryEngine code already embedded in Star Citizen and Squadron 42 was removed from those games, and, on information and belief, to do so would be a technical impossibility absent starting development over from scratch. Rather, Mr. Freyermuth is suggesting that CIG “switched” licenses from the GLA to the Amazon license.Two points follow from this. First, CIG’s arguments in its brief that “Crytek’s code will no longer be in use” appear to either be inaccurate or avery loose characterization of the facts. Second, while CIG is no doubt free to take a second license to the CryEngine from Amazon, CIG cannot unilaterally revoke the GLA by doing so. So long as the CryEngine remains embedded in CIG’s games, CIG must abide by the GLA and is currently in breach of multiple terms of the GLA.
This actually feels like a really weak point to me, unless they have actual code, the submitted bug fixes reference CryEngine code and are dated post-GLA, or they can make the determination between Lumberyard and CryEngine. This could actually force Amazon into the fight, but only in the Amicus Curae or letter format clarifying the difference between CryEngine and Lumberyard according to the contract Amazon signed.

Source code and the source code history would be the holy grail here.

quote:
Because CIG remains bound by the GLA
This actually made me laugh. it's a bold strategy based on the lack of termination clause in the GLA.

Under this, they're going after;

  • 'Credits'
  • 'Bug Fixes'
quote:
CIG does not explain how the term “annually” does not constitute a fixed time. Nor do the cases relied on by CIG suggest that the requirement for annual delivery is not “fixed.” Indeed, there are only two possible, reasonable understandings of “annually” under the GLA: once every year on the anniversary of the GLA’s execution or December 31 of every year. CIG’s attempts to impose a duty on Crytek,who was not in a position to know when CIG implemented bug fixes,to request bug fixes is facially absurd. If CIG implemented bug fixes, it was required to provide them annually.
This is actually solid, given that the bug fixes have apparently been supplied on presentation of the lawsuit. CIG have now demonstrated that they had them, and also curiously don't explain why they hadn't handed them over before.

(I'm 100% certain that Ortwin telegraphed their feeling in terms that they believed that CryTek would have gone bust and released them from obligations to that Company. 110% sure, even, because it's the main thrust of their opposing argument)

* Bugsmashers

quote:
At the outset, CIG does not dispute that it published portions of Crytek’s confidential CryEngine source code without permission. Instead, CIG sets forth a number of reasons why its publishing of the CryEngine code in breach of the GLA should be excused.
[...]

quote:
CIG’s “breach is acceptable as long as Crytek can’t prove monetary harm” attitude is cavalier and disturbing.
This is all red meat and makes Skaddens look a bit weak.

* Squadron 42

quote:
CIG’s primary argument—that there can be no breach until Squadron 42 is released—lacks merit.
quote:
CIG had no right to use CryEngine in development of a stand-alone game such as Squadron 42. Because that development has already occurred and continues to occur, CIG is wrong that the “time for performance” has not yet arrived. Dkt. 57-1 at 12.CIG premises its argument on the description of the Game provided in Exhibit 2 of the GLA. In relevant part, that description provides:For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately,and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g. a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate,standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game).
* Faceware
quote:
CIG asserts Crytek’s information with respect to this claim is simply wrong. While Crytek has good reason to believe this disclosure occurred, it would be happy to learn it is wrong. Discovery will quickly resolve the question. Crytek’s objective here, as with the BugSmasher claim,is simply to insure that CIG has not and does not wrongfully disclose the CryEngine source code for its own benefit.
Now this is interesting, because it's one of the first hints that they might have some details from someone else, or they're bluffing hard.

quote:
In addition, CIG has requested an excessive bond in the amount of $2,193,298.45 to secure CIG’s putative award of costs and attorneys’ fees. Here CIG asserts that the claims are unusually complex while simultaneously asserting that Crytek’s remaining claims are “meritless” and “only a rump set of quibbles.”
They have a point.

The rest of the document points out that 'expert witness fees' are not covered under 1033.5, they appear to have pulled their number out of their because they've barely started discovery, and some of the points to be answered - like exposing code in Bugsmashers - are fairly cut and dried.

Eric Buresh has revived my interest in the case because he's hit on some neat aspects to this.
 
Hello,

SC probably postponed for 10 years more if The Visionnaire is watching E3:


Bye.
I was all set to go "Hurry up and take my money!"

... then I realized it was an XBox exclusive, which not only meant I wouldn't be able to play it on the PC, but more importantly, I wouldn't be able to play it in VR. :(😭😢

edit:

It's on PC. The whole announcement revolves around how Game Pass is coming to PC as an extension of the existing XBox store integration — a lot of what they presented was there to give the game pass a wide lineup on launch.
:):D:)😍
 
Last edited:
CIG’s “breach is acceptable as long as Crytek can’t prove monetary harm” attitude is cavalier and disturbing.
This is all red meat and makes Skaddens look a bit weak.
The problem is there is no definition of what constitutes a termination or a breach of contract in the GLA. Both parties here are guilty of having signed off that weak agreement that opens the door to everything... CT will have to prove actual damages just to start having a leg to stand on, that's why CiG can afford to be that cavalier at the moment.
 
Its not really my thing, but SQ42 and SC have insane amount of lore.
Agreed. They do have a lot of lore, but to me it seems somewhat derivative (although I am biased). What is unique about SC's universe? It feels like a weird fusion of Star Trek, Star Wars, a bunch of other scifi universes (Bladerunner?) and 21st century capitalism/consumerism.

Compare that to Asimov's Foundation series or better yet Frank Herbert's Dune. Herbet's world is mind blowing; the lack of computers, the role of spice, mentants, the feudal/imperial political structure, the Spacing Guild. Granted all these elements are based on existing tropes and historical events, but the way Herbert combined them, made them more than the sum of their parts.

I don't expect video games to attain a similar level of world building (although Troika/Black Isle games come close), but CIG could have at least tried to create something distinctive. Instead we get Star Trek style aliens, Star Wars inspired space combat, Bladerunner aesthetics and Starship Troopers derived "citizenship" mechanics. And a bunch of their ships/vehicles are almost 1:1 clones of other famous spaceship/properties. Motorbike DLC with "Sons of Anarchy" marketing? Come on!

I could have come up with SC's lore in a few weeks of dedicated work.

It's not going to be the whole thing without robots finding loopholes in the three laws, though. :)
That's far beyond Robert's imagination. Wing Commander (the movie) is the best he can do. ;)
 
Agreed. They do have a lot of lore, but to me it seems somewhat derivative (although I am biased).
In a way its hard not to be derivative in some way these days, with so much sci-fi out there. Try thinking of some sort of sci-fi setting/feature that hasn't already been done... its not easy.

On the other hand, CR makes it a bit easy to compare. The sandworm was the most flagrant example. I mean, why a worm? Why not a beatle? Or some other desert creature? If nothing else, surely Ortwin should have said "Nice Chris, except, if we go with this, we might run into IP problems with the Herbert estate, why not a different creature just to be on the safe side?" Then there was the sudden refocusing on delivering Arccorp after the cyberpunk 2077 demo was shown off. Sure, they were already working on it, and had been for a while, but it seems like it was suddenly all hands on deck to get that shipped.

There is a reason there is a meme "Looks like Chris recently watched...."
 
The problem is there is no definition of what constitutes a termination or a breach of contract in the GLA. Both parties here are guilty of having signed off that weak agreement that opens the door to everything... CT will have to prove actual damages just to start having a leg to stand on, that's why CiG can afford to be that cavalier at the moment.
Yep. That's why CIG's most important asset is Ortwin.
 
Well I played a bit 3.5.1 patch.....and seems pretty meh,all in all didn't notice ANY significant changes or improvements worth to mention except that cash-grab do a paint-job thing......oh yeah stability seems worst then before because I experience few crashes but then again that could be also server issue and lame netcode as usual when servers get flooded and nothing to do particularly with this latest patch.....
Well, 3.5.1 seems to be mainly a lot of minor bugfixes so if there is any new things and improvements it will most likely not show up until 3.6

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/star-citizen-alpha-3-5-1-live-1798586-patch-notes
 
Top Bottom