The Star Citizen Thread v9
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
It was tough to read on my phone, I was trying to make sense of the reason to grant the MTD section on exclusivity?
It appeared to read as though the judge was saying "This is a shockingly badly written contract clause and should not have been in the grants section; but as the plaintiff agreed to it, it is their own fault?"
It appeared to read as though the judge was saying "This is a shockingly badly written contract clause and should not have been in the grants section; but as the plaintiff agreed to it, it is their own fault?"
That's why Crytek responded when such glee when CIG reversed their position and asked to settle, only to reverse again when it was pointed out that the actual amount meant CIG would have to give up the one thing they must under no circumstances give up.
That, and also “the defendant also has no idea what this clause means, so everyone is stupid for tripping over such simple language.”
There were a couple of moments like that in the document, so yes. But also they used a lot of references to precedent and the specific rules of California which affected the decision.
A tactic that Apple does very well, increase sales by giving the appearance of low availability. If they have a venue then they should know how many people they can hold in that venue, for legal reasons such as fire safety, plus the number of days it will run and a few extra to account for people not attending for whatever reason. Not even their ticket sales are on the up and up but who expected otherwise.
Regarding that poor individual on Reddit, should this project be doomed for whatever reasons I am certain this game will make headlines and it won't be about the game either. Anyone so heavily involved may actually have something wrong with them and people are going to do something stupid.
No, the MTD to dismiss the claim of breach of contract and copyright was denied. It has to be settled in court but it's possible that Crytech can deny them use of Cryengine if they're not satisfied and they win in court. Now, if they can prove that Lumberyard is not Cryengine and they can use it, good luck to them.
Either way SQ42 isn't coming out this year, next year, any year.
Is it me or are the devs beginning to look a little stressed by the whole thing?
Soooo...gathering info it looks like judge just shrugged 'wow, this is bad contract, but you guys signed it soo....though y'. Which does not bode well for CIG, like at all. Copyright breach basically means end of project, no way they can spin Amazon spinoff does not contain Crytek copyright. It does.
More likely they're now deep into the crunch for getting something meaningful and awesome out for 3.3's release at CitizenCon.
I'd be interested to know what CIG's Plan B is. Assuming they are in any way sensible they must have thought about what will happen if they lose this case. What do they do then? No game, presumably a lot of unspent money, but certainly not enough to refund everyone. What happens to those unspent funds? Do the lawyer's suck it all up?
Priests gotta priest. Everybody has to play their role in this.
They'll be contributing to Montoya's Patreon right now, so he can continue to tell them good things about the lawsuit.
It could certainly be a case of not being allowed to sell (or even market) it until its exact status has been clarified, which in and of itself means that any development becomes hideously risky: do they go ahead and then it turns out that they can't use that work so it's all wasted; or do they stop and then have to scramble because it's delayed another 2–3 years because yay, legal system speeds.
So the mere risk of it might be prohibitively preventing on its own.
And that's before we even get into the mess of “what parts qualify as SQ42 anyway?” — is there some kind of tainted source argument here that even portions of SC that might conceivably be used for SQ42 can't be touched? In which case… ow.
Last edited:
Maybe that's why we don't hear anything of Sq42? They stomped it for legal risks, knowing it is separate game and continued with the project that monetises better?
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I do not know if that is why we do not hear much yet, but I suspect one of the reasons why CIG decided to sell it separately is due to the tax relief requirements in the UK. So it would be fun now seeing CIG trying to argue that SQ42 is "part of the game"
One of CIG´s best bet now to avoid all that could be to try and prove that it is all Lumberyard all the way... which is probably as tough and will probably lead to tons of hilarity.![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Pretty much. The only interesting part IMO were the damages, since the "no damage" clauses in their agreement were quite unusual. So now we know punitive damages have been disallowed, no doubt quite a relief to CIG. Crytek will only be able to claim compensatory damages. Not much of a problem for CIG considering any breaches of copyright and contract, if proven, seem minor. And the judge is allowing S42 to be tested to determine if it's "standalone". That could add to damages if found to be in breach.
But as expected, it will be business as usual for CIG. They have no issue continuing development based on what we've seen today, and their lawyers job will now be to minimise damages payout. I'm guessing they'll settle.