[Megathread] Star Citizen

[masterhorus8]

Sure Horus, people are enjoying the game. I didn't reply to videos of that though saying it was fake and say it didn't represent what people were experiencing. He's specifically doing that though to my video. That's the difference. He absolutely is claiming it is flawless by denying that the poor experiences even exist.

Not once did I say or hint that the video I posted was the game being broken to everybody. You're strawmanning that. :]

You're being defensive at this point just like Mali. All of this boils down to certain people in this thread just being unable to look at a video and say "Ok, sucks for that guy." and move on. They have to pause, attack and try to discredit the entire video, the person who posted it and even mention a twitter feed where the video ended up after x amount of time. It's grasping at straws.

Just take a step back and accept the negative experience videos just as I accept your "porno" videos and people having fun. If you did that there'd be no issue whatsoever.

What he said wasn't anecdotal at all if you did any research, that was my point that you failed to understand. He even had a video linked recently of himself playing with that framerate (also showing the CPU spiking bug). Where at all did I mention that I didn't accept those poor fps videos? I flat out told you what's causing it, meaning I know exactly what you're referring to and acknowledging its existence.

But this is another one of your problems. Anytime anyone calls you out on your bullshit, you say they're "getting defensive". You're trying to stop discussions. It is not productive whatsoever. Just because I choose to use coarse language does not imply I'm defensive. It does however mean that I have less respect for you than others in here.

Have a nice holiday.

[Majestic12]

What he said wasn't anecdotal at all if you did any research, that was my point that you failed to understand. He even had a video linked recently of himself playing with that framerate (also showing the CPU spiking bug). Where at all did I mention that I didn't accept those poor fps videos? I flat out told you what's causing it, meaning I know exactly what you're referring to and acknowledging its existence.

But this is another one of your problems. Anytime anyone calls you out on your bullshit, you say they're "getting defensive". You're trying to stop discussions. It is not productive whatsoever. Just because I choose to use coarse language does not imply I'm defensive. It does however mean that I have less respect for you than others in here.

Have a nice holiday.

There is no bullshit, Horus. Mali is one of the extremists in this thread and you're an extremist sympathizer. That's why you're defending him. It's very simple.

A discussion at the end of the day should be constructive. I made my point and all I got in return was "omg FAKE! IGNORED!!". So much for "stopping a discussion" eh, from your camp? But I don't see you calling them out. Like I said, you're a sympathizer.

P.s: Would love to have seen what the deleted post said.

Anyway, peace out.

[Malibutomi]

[

Sure Horus, people are enjoying the game. I didn't reply to videos of that though saying it was fake and say it didn't represent what people were experiencing. He's specifically doing that though to my video. That's the difference. He absolutely is claiming it is flawless by denying that the poor experiences even exist.

Not once did I say or hint that the video I posted was the game being broken to everybody. You're strawmanning that. :]

You're being defensive at this point just like Mali. All of this boils down to certain people in this thread just being unable to look at a video and say "Ok, sucks for that guy." and move on. They have to pause, attack and try to discredit the entire video, the person who posted it and even mention a twitter feed where the video ended up after x amount of time. It's grasping at straws.

Just take a step back and accept the negative experience videos just as I accept your "porno" videos and people having fun. If you did that there'd be no issue whatsoever.

Heh since you're talking about me I might as well answer:

You're so addicted to your agenda that you say i wrote thing i didn't mate.

Only thing i said he run it on a potato with some problem.
I never said the video is fake or anything similar.
I never claimed the game is flawless either, i only said the majority of people get 20-30 FPS, that based on reddit, few dozens of friends and my own experience.
But based on 1 video showing 1FPS and thousands showing 25-30 FPS plus not a single friend in the PTU told me anything like it this 1FPS bug must hit a very-very small minority. However your original post with the sarcastic comment (and knowing your history in the topic) totally came through as suggesting this is how PTU runs.

As for being extremist, i wonder who is an extremist fighting over this video putting words in others mouth they didn't say, stating everyone is defensive who doesn't agree with you.
We are not defensive we state facts. Which you tried to bent and which made you dig your hole just deeper.

To be clear i only answering to this 'cause i saw you mentioned me in the answer to Horus and tried to gave words in my mouth i never used.

Noone had a problem with the video we all know there are bugs...the problem was with your commentary and attitude.

[Malibutomi]

I just have a question though, how many more times will you be throwing him into your ignore list until you actually stop replying to his posts?

He is on it, but sadly can see if someone answering to him, and it's hard to ignore when he states things about me which are not true.
I'm finished with the argument tho...back on topic heres a beautiful clip i just captured:

[Roshar]

CryTek, creator of CryEngine, sue Cloud Imperium Games over now-unlicensed use of CryEngine and breach of contract during the development of StarCitizen and SQ42

From a comment in the reddit thread:

They in fact do not seem to be fine with star citizen. They also include in the complaint that the devs promised (1) to only use CryEngine as their engine (which they appear to have violated by using Lumberyard as well), (2) to advertise CryEngine's use in the game (which they appear to have for some reason reneged on by removing splashscreens for CryEngine and referring to the engine as "Star Engine"), (3) not to share proprietary info on CryEngine, yet they have a youtube series that purportedly talks about details of CryEngine in the context of bug fixing, and (4) to provide CryTek with annual bugfixes and optimizations of CryEngine, which they didn't do. Note that all of this was apparently in exchange for a "below market" licensing fee on the engine.

[Beazy]

CryTek, creator of CryEngine, sue Cloud Imperium Games over now-unlicensed use of CryEngine and breach of contract during the development of StarCitizen and SQ42

From a comment in the reddit thread:

That's a game over if true.

Full complaint via reddit thread: https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG

[Shanden]

That's a game over if true.

Nah, all the fans which now cry "crytek is just going for a cashgrab before they die!" (reddit) will simply pay for the out of court agreement that is going to happen if the complaint has legal ground.

[Beazy]

Nah, all the fans which now cry "crytek is just going for a cashgrab before they die!" (reddit) will simply pay for the out of court agreement that is going to happen if the complaint has legal ground.

Maybe, I woudln't put it past the hardcore fans. Their whales have proven that $10k is a drop in the bucket.

[Cyclone Jack]

Nah, all the fans which now cry "crytek is just going for a cashgrab before they die!" (reddit) will simply pay for the out of court agreement that is going to happen if the complaint has legal ground.

Crytek got a huge chunk of cash when they licensed the engine to Amazon, so I don't think this is a move of desperation; unless they already burned through that money.

This is all on CIG, since they split what was SC+SQ42 into two separate games while having the license for a single game. The questions I have would be, how do the licensing fees work with the engine when making a single player game (SQ42), and when do you need to pay those fees; before, during and/or after release of the game? When CIG licensed Lumberyard from Amazon, how did that affect the licensing from Crytek, if at all (it mentions Crytek is upset about that, but does the contract prevent them from changing engines)? Was CIG thinking that they could just transfer the Crytek license from SC over to SQ42, and then use the Lumberyard license for SC; and if so, why did they not OK it with Crytek?

My main issue with this is that Crytek apparently contacted CIG about this in 2016, and CIG hasn't done anything about it yet.

[Jtbrig7390]

Nah, all the fans which now cry "crytek is just going for a cashgrab before they die!" (reddit) will simply pay for the out of court agreement that is going to happen if the complaint has legal ground.

If Crytek wins they will have full power to shutdown Star Citizen, Just like how Unreal had Silicon Knights Destory all copy's of Too Human that wasn't sold.

If this is true and Crytek wins that is the death of Star Citizen.

[Gorsameth]

Crytek got a huge chunk of cash when they licensed the engine to Amazon, so I don't think this is a move of desperation; unless they already burned through that money.

This is all on CIG, since they split what was SC+SQ42 into two separate games while having the license for a single game. The questions I have would be, how do the licensing fees work with the engine when making a single player game (SQ42), and when do you need to pay those fees; before, during and/or after release of the game? When CIG licensed Lumberyard from Amazon, how did that affect the licensing from Crytek, if at all (it mentions Crytek is upset about that, but does the contract prevent them from changing engines)? Was CIG thinking that they could just transfer the Crytek license from SC over to SQ42, and then use the Lumberyard license for SC; and if so, why did they not OK it with Crytek?

My main issue with this is that Crytek apparently contacted CIG about this in 2016, and CIG hasn't done anything about it yet.

Using different engines for SQ42 and SC would be a hilarious waste of money, time and resources. The 2 games need the same basic structure. SC just has lots of bits stuck on for the MMO part.

Also didn't they talk about heavily integrating CryEngine (which was already heavily modified into StarEngine) with Lumberyard?

And yes, how the hell do you not discuss this all with the company you license your engine from.

[Majestic12]

Wow, that's really bad news. Just the fact that CIG has to spend effort in battling that is enough. Hope CIG pulls through on that one. If SC succeeds or fails should be based on what they put out, not because some other company decided to puncture all of CIG's work.

[Edge-]

Wow, that's really bad news. Just the fact that CIG has to spend effort in battling that is enough. Hope CIG pulls through on that one. If SC succeeds or fails should be based on what they put out, not because some other company decided to puncture all of CIG's work.

Well, if CIG did screw up on some of these things, especially things like removing the Crytek logo from splash screens and art, then that's not on Crytek, that's purely on CIG. That's the kinda "gimme" in a contract that should never be an issue.

I'm curious to see how the lawsuit plays out, nowhere near knowledgeable enough about the legal process or the exact specifics to have an opinion one way or another.

[Tierbook]

Well, if CIG did screw up on some of these things, especially things like removing the Crytek logo from splash screens and art, then that's not on Crytek, that's purely on CIG. That's the kinda "gimme" in a contract that should never be an issue.

I'm curious to see how the lawsuit plays out, nowhere near knowledgeable enough about the legal process or the exact specifics to have an opinion one way or another.

One thing that's interesting is that the lawyers that were involved both work for CIG atm, the lawyer that worked for Crytech in setting up the contract switched over to CIG

[Majestic12]

Well, if CIG did screw up on some of these things, especially things like removing the Crytek logo from splash screens and art, then that's not on Crytek, that's purely on CIG. That's the kinda "gimme" in a contract that should never be an issue.

I'm curious to see how the lawsuit plays out, nowhere near knowledgeable enough about the legal process or the exact specifics to have an opinion one way or another.

Yeah, I agree that CIG is at fault if they indeed breached something. I just don't think that this is how the project should end.

The bitter reality is now that:
1. CIG has to pay to battle this.
2. If they lose, it's game over.

There is no win for CIG in this one. Backer money is basically going to go towards battling a lawsuit against a really good law firm.
This is just a pure mess now.

[KyrtF]

Yeah, I agree that CIG is at fault if they indeed breached something. I just don't think that this is how the project should end.

No, it isn't.

But CryTek is saying they breached the terms of its GLA. Given that CIG **HAVE** done pretty much everything they are accused of - and we know this is true - their defence has to rest on something akin to the idea that whatever license they have gives them the right.

Which seems unlikely.

Did they buy the engine outright? That doesn't seem a credible defence. They could have bought a source code license, but that doesn't free them from IP and copyright law, nor contractual obligations.
CIG can shout all it wants that the charges are without merit because it switched to Lumberyard....but in doing so, they are shouting that the charges against CIG are true.

That's what is worrying here. CIG had to have known these charges were coming. But it still continued to fundraise and it took no remedial action. How difficult would it have been to put CryTeks logos and copyright notices back? Either it is 100% certain that it has a defence........or it simply could not afford to pay CryTek enough to solve the issue. And if, as some suggest, it made deliberate efforts to sidestep the contract that is likely to lead to some heavy punitive damages as it shows at least a degree of wilful intent.

So - yes. This is a mess.

But right now, it appears to be a mess caused by CIG and CIG alone. At best, it appears that they believed that buying a source code license gave them more rights than they actually received. Made them believe they effectively owned CryEngine and could do with it what they wanted. That they had bought out their contract with CryTek. If a source code license is what they bought...it doesn't work that way. At worst, it appears they gambled on CryTek going under and being in no position to challenge their usurpation of rights or their flouting of the GLA.

To say this is a mess is putting it mildly. One has to wonder how much CryTek are asking for that CIG didn't simply pay up to make it go away, or if CIG really do have a defence....something a little bit stronger than "we're guilty". One thinks they should have woken up their lawyer BEFORE issuing that statement.

[zealo]

No, it isn't.

But CryTek is saying they breached the terms of its GLA. Given that CIG **HAVE** done pretty much everything they are accused of - and we know this is true - their defence has to rest on something akin to the idea that whatever license they have gives them the right.

Which seems unlikely.

Did they buy the engine outright? That doesn't seem a credible defence. They could have bought a source code license, but that doesn't free them from IP and copyright law, nor contractual obligations.
CIG can shout all it wants that the charges are without merit because it switched to Lumberyard....but in doing so, they are shouting that the charges against CIG are true.

That's what is worrying here. CIG had to have known these charges were coming. But it still continued to fundraise and it took no remedial action. How difficult would it have been to put CryTeks logos and copyright notices back? Either it is 100% certain that it has a defence........or it simply could not afford to pay CryTek enough to solve the issue. And if, as some suggest, it made deliberate efforts to sidestep the contract that is likely to lead to some heavy punitive damages as it shows at least a degree of wilful intent.

So - yes. This is a mess.

But right now, it appears to be a mess caused by CIG and CIG alone. At best, it appears that they believed that buying a source code license gave them more rights than they actually received. Made them believe they effectively owned CryEngine and could do with it what they wanted. That they had bought out their contract with CryTek. If a source code license is what they bought...it doesn't work that way. At worst, it appears they gambled on CryTek going under and being in no position to challenge their usurpation of rights or their flouting of the GLA.

To say this is a mess is putting it mildly. One has to wonder how much CryTek are asking for that CIG didn't simply pay up to make it go away, or if CIG really do have a defence....something a little bit stronger than "we're guilty". One thinks they should have woken up their lawyer BEFORE issuing that statement.

Whether the charges are without merit or not doesn't entirely hinge upon whether it switched to Lumberyard or not, but whether they properly terminated their previous contract with CryTek when making that switch. Whether that's the case we'll just have to wait and see, as " we didn't do it!" is a pretty standard PR statement to being sued prior to any court case happening.

[KyrtF]

Whether the charges are without merit or not doesn't entirely hinge upon whether it switched to Lumberyard or not, but whether they properly terminated their previous contract with CryTek when making that switch. Whether that's the case we'll just have to wait and see, as " we didn't do it!" is a pretty standard PR statement to being sued prior to any court case happening.

That's just it...CIGs statement essentially said "Yup. We did it. We're guilty". They didn't deny it. They said the charges were spurious because they had switched to Lumberyard...which is (part of) what CIG are charging them with doing.

[zealo]

That's just it...CIGs statement essentially said "Yup. We did it. We're guilty". They didn't deny it. They said the charges were spurious because they had switched to Lumberyard...which is (part of) what CIG are charging them with doing.

What they admitted to was using Lumberyard, not that they were in the wrong for doing so. Exit clauses are a thing in contracts. CryTek is a company that has been in deep financial troubles in recent years to the point of being unable to pay it's employees, and may have triggered one depending on how CIG sees it, and may leave space open for a counter sue.

I wouldn't call this anywhere near certain before it gets tried in court.

[Malibutomi]

Crytek got a huge chunk of cash when they licensed the engine to Amazon, so I don't think this is a move of desperation; unless they already burned through that money.

This is all on CIG, since they split what was SC+SQ42 into two separate games while having the license for a single game. The questions I have would be, how do the licensing fees work with the engine when making a single player game (SQ42), and when do you need to pay those fees; before, during and/or after release of the game? When CIG licensed Lumberyard from Amazon, how did that affect the licensing from Crytek, if at all (it mentions Crytek is upset about that, but does the contract prevent them from changing engines)? Was CIG thinking that they could just transfer the Crytek license from SC over to SQ42, and then use the Lumberyard license for SC; and if so, why did they not OK it with Crytek?

My main issue with this is that Crytek apparently contacted CIG about this in 2016, and CIG hasn't done anything about it yet.

They got 70 million from Amazon in 2015...then again they couldn't pay their employees and of 2016 early 2017.

I suspect a nice back and forth, as Crytek on the verge of bankrupcy probably couldn't support CIG, that's why they switced to LY. They will both try to prove their right then settle for an agreement, and at worst CIG pay some money to them.
Crytek don't want a years long court battle in their state, CIG neither i imagine.


Also about breaching contract, i imagine as usual there are several escape routes in these GLAs. OFC Cryteks filing is showing CIG in a bad way, thats is what a filing is for. CIG will do the same on court. There's always two sides of a coin.