[Megathread] Star Citizen

[Eleccybubb]

I sure hope not. But even then, why bother? It as much fun as a video of Microsoft Word reproducing the letter 'A' for 24 hours. People sure are weird.

Simple reason. Pure feature bloat.

It's going to suffer from features that are just there because "it can be done" rather than them being interesting.

[zealo]

Simple reason. Pure feature bloat.

It's going to suffer from features that are just there because "it can be done" rather than them being interesting.

I wouldn't label this particular instance as being feature bloat.

It's a game about spaceships as a flight simulator as it's primary point. There actually being some tangible real distance between planets isn't something out of the ordinary here.

[Majestic12]

A well-reputed lawfirm wouldn't have taken on CryTek's job if they had reviewed the case and found ZERO merit to it.

[KyrtF]

On other news, CIG answered to the Crytek claims, which seems a knockout combined with a kick in the balls so far.

The "knockout" has a GLA that supports CryTeks assertions in four out of the five charges, and relies on a judge reinterpreting the common understanding on exclusivity for the fifth.

The most interesting defence seems to be the "suing the wrong company" question. Don't think anyone really knows how a judge will interpret that and it wouldn't stop CT refiling against the right company either.

As for the GLA...it is a bit childish and even amateurish for CIG to have included it. That is commercially sensitive information which, at least, should have been sealed. For them to then go crying to the judge that CryTek were trying to hide it....when that documentation isn't necessary at this stage and usually isn't included in the initial charges or responses...speaks more of trying to persuade the backers that everything is OK.

All in all, this will...as expected...come down to interpretation.

If the judge agrees CT sued the wrong company, it'll be dismissed but CT will re file.

If the judge agrees that exclusivity means what CIG want it to mean, it means CIG is off the hook for that portion of the case...but also drives a big loophole through other similar agreements.

The other four charges would seem likely to be upheld. Even the issue of S42....this is a contract allowing use of CryEngine for a single game and, notwithstanding its use of the names of the original modules as part of a single game within the summary, the GLA takes care to define what it means. S42 isn't covered as it is sold and marketed as a standalone game and doesn't require Star Citizen.

- - - Updated - - -

Ofc it's not ovet until it's over. You are right on that.
But if you look into the documents, Crytek's claims looks silly.
Crytek claimed the license is for one game, the GLA starts with the very thing naming as they call it there "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'"

And if you read through the entire GLA you get a section which seeks to remove all doubt over what is meant by "game".

S42 does not qualify as part of Star Citizen. It is a standalone game.

Crytek claims CIG should exclusively use Cryengine, from the GLA it's clear the exclusivity means there is used in its common form as they givecthe rights to CIG exclusively so CIG cannot give it away to others.

Which is where interpretation of the phrase "to exclusively embed" will be important. Given a clause whose intent is to protect CryTek, and that such an exclusivity clause is common to avoid dilution of game engines, and given the terminology and language issues, CryTeks assertion seems likelier to prevail.

But not certain.

Even Crytek's claim was formally faulty as they named CIG and RSI as defendants and RSI is not in the GLA at all, the contract is between CIG and Crytek.

Which...if upheld...might get the case dismissed but would simply mean CryTek is likely to refile.

[Malibutomi]

The "knockout" has a GLA that supports CryTeks assertions in four out of the five charges, and relies on a judge reinterpreting the common understanding on exclusivity for the fifth.

Except it destroys Crytek's claims

The most interesting defence seems to be the "suing the wrong company" question. Don't think anyone really knows how a judge will interpret that and it wouldn't stop CT refiling against the right company either.

It is a formal error...nice addition to some peoples argument argument "a biig law firm wouldn't take the case if it's not on merit" Hmmm...the biiiiig law firm couldn't even look through the GLA and file the claim against the correct entity.

As for the GLA...it is a bit childish and even amateurish for CIG to have included it. That is commercially sensitive information which, at least, should have been sealed. For them to then go crying to the judge that CryTek were trying to hide it....when that documentation isn't necessary at this stage and usually isn't included in the initial charges or responses...speaks more of trying to persuade the backers that everything is OK.

It is not childish...as others who have some knowledge pointed out, in this part of the case noone brings evidence EXCEPT if the other party mentioned them.
As it basically nullifies Crytek's claims, without any other word, quite a good point to bring it on. Also you who i assume have as much knowledge in copyright claims as the rest of us here calling the act of lawyers childish....is childish in itself

If the judge agrees that exclusivity means what CIG want it to mean, it means CIG is off the hook for that portion of the case...but also drives a big loophole through other similar agreements.

Well it's really easy to see what interpretation they used here.
There's two point with the word exclusively...both in the "Grants" (2.1) section, not in the "restrictions" (2.2)

point 2.1.2: "to exclusively embed Cryengine in the game and develop the game...."
point 2.1.3: "To exclusively manufacture, market, promote, sell, license, publish and exploit the Game in any way...."

Seeing them both it really seems exclusively means CIG is the only one who can do these things, not CIG can only do (use) these things and none other.
So it means only CIG can use the Cryengine to develop their game(s), they cannot pass the rights to third party...and only CIG can develop, promote sell, etc the game.

The other four charges would seem likely to be upheld. Even the issue of S42....this is a contract allowing use of CryEngine for a single game and, notwithstanding its use of the names of the original modules as part of a single game within the summary, the GLA takes care to define what it means. S42 isn't covered as it is sold and marketed as a standalone game and doesn't require Star Citizen.

The only things would stand is selling it separately...if it would still use Cryengine...but it is not so...

Which is where interpretation of the phrase "to exclusively embed" will be important. Given a clause whose intent is to protect CryTek, and that such an exclusivity clause is common to avoid dilution of game engines, and given the terminology and language issues, CryTeks assertion seems likelier to prevail.

Exclusivity means CIG cannot pass on these right, not that CIG cannot use other engines. See above where i gave you the correct interpretation.

[masterhorus8]

If anyone needs a link for what an exclusive license is: https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing...exclusive.html

[KyrtF]

Except it destroys Crytek's claims

Not when the same GLA defines a separate game as one which is promoted and marketed separately and does not require Star Citizen to run.

You can't just cherry pick the phrases that suit you. And even in the summary, it defines both S42 and SC as elements of the same Game...singular. Not Games. This is a field where a comma can cost you millions...and has. The summary defines "game" - singular. The GLA defines S42 as a standalone product separate from Star Citizen. Both clauses agree with CryTeks assertions.

It is a formal error...nice addition to some peoples argument argument "a biig law firm wouldn't take the case if it's not on merit" Hmmm...the biiiiig law firm couldn't even look through the GLA and file the claim against the correct entity.

That depends on whether or not RSI is the correct entity and whether or not this was a mistake. Think through what CIGs defence in this area has done.

They are now arguing that each of the 17 shell companies they have working on Star Citizen are now third parties with which they (apparently) do not have written permission from CryTek to share the CryEngine code with. And this is a situation that has persisted for some time sicne most of these predate LumberYard. CIG claiming that the whole lot are not one big happy family not only flies in the face of evidence - such as refunds where RSI refunds player who paid CIG - but it also opens them up to a lot more damages when and if CryTek decide to refile.

That's why this is a risky move - it could easily backfire.

It is not childish...as others who have some knowledge pointed out, in this part of the case noone brings evidence EXCEPT if the other party mentioned them.
As it basically nullifies Crytek's claims, without any other word, quite a good point to bring it on. Also you who i assume have as much knowledge in copyright claims as the rest of us here calling the act of lawyers childish....is childish in itself

It was childish to make a big deal out of CryTek supposedly hiding the document from the court
It was childish and amateurish to publish it openly without sealing it. This IS Commercially sensitive information. It's not something that is generally made public.

Especially since it does little to hurt CryTeks case.

Seeing them both it really seems exclusively means CIG is the only one who can do these things, not CIG can only do (use) these things and none other.

Which is silly - because there is another section of the GLA which specifically deal with this situation. It doesn't need to be included twice.

Exclusivity means CIG cannot pass on these right, not that CIG cannot use other engines. See above where i gave you the correct interpretation.

That's the definition CIG wants.

By the rules of the English language - at least as I learned them - it is also wrong. To exclusively embed would mean ruling out all other engines. This is a common clause with game engines and I would expect a GLA to have one. Lo and behold - it does. And look...it also has a second clause that deals with CIG supposed interpretation - that of being able to pass the engine onto third parties. Do I expect a court to overturn what is a common restriction common to many such agreements? It might. Would I bet on it doing so? No.

[Roshar]

Gotta love armchair lawyers saying how Crytek's claims have no basis or merit.

[masterhorus8]

Gotta love armchair lawyers saying how Crytek's claims have no basis or merit.

Goes both ways.

But also, the video linked earlier was an actual copyright lawyer dismissing most of Crytek's claims.

[Gorsameth]

Goes both ways.

But also, the video linked earlier was an actual copyright lawyer dismissing most of Crytek's claims.

When I see two conflicting opinions on a case. One from one of the most respected lawfirms in the world and the other from an youtube video wearing a rick and morty silly hat, I know who I am more inclined to believe has a case.

[masterhorus8]

When I see two conflicting opinions on a case. One from one of the most respected lawfirms in the world and the other from an youtube video wearing a rick and morty silly hat, I know who I am more inclined to believe has a case.

And that's your prerogative. I was just letting the person I quoted know that one of the people that have weighed in on this is far from an armchair lawyer.

[Majestic12]

Goes both ways.

But also, the video linked earlier was an actual copyright lawyer dismissing most of Crytek's claims.

A biased lawyer, to add. He was always on SC's side.

That's like giving credit to Derek Smart for being a game dev when he will trash talk Star Citizen's development no matter what.

I'm personally just going to wait and let it play out from the sides. Do all of CryTek's points have merit? Probably not, but I find it very unlikely that Skadden would have reviewed the same GLA, the case, found zero merit with anything and still gone with the case. That's not a really unreasonable stance to be honest.

[KyrtF]

Gotta love armchair lawyers saying how Crytek's claims have no basis or merit.

Leonard French is not an armchair lawyer.

He is an actual copyright lawyer. His opinions aren't easy to dismiss because the truth is, this IS his job, this IS his area of expertise.

The truth is that CIG does have a point. Did CryTek make a mistake in also suing RSI? Maybe they did. Why did they do so if the deal was with CIG? Maybe RSI has the money. Maybe RSI left itself open somehow....Skadden gave the excuse that, through its actions, RSI made it self a de facto signatory. What actions is it talking about?

We don't know.

Same with the "Exclusive" clause. It's part of the GLA that standard English rules of language apply. That - to me - makes CryTeks interpretation correct. CIG also raised the point that you cannot look at just one part of the contract. And that CryTeks interpretation is dealt with in a another clause is an indication - again - that CryTeks interpretation is correct.

But that doesn't rule out a technical meaning for exclusivity that we don't know about that would supercede this.

Conversely, we have CIGs defence.

To me...it seems pretty shambolic.
They argue, for example, that S42 is still the same game, when the GLA provides a definition that it is a separate game, a definition backed up by the Exhibit showing the GLA considers S42 part of SC.
They argue that RSI is a different company and not a signatory, but even if that part is true, CryTek are still suing CIG and can refile. A delaying action at best. Meanwhile, they've just admitted that their subsidiaries are effectively third parties, not all of which have been granted written permission to use CryEngine which ahs potentially made CryTeks case stronger.
They argue that the exclusivity clause means one thing but the GLA mentions that this is to be read as common English...making them wrong. But maybe there is a technicality behind it I am unaware of, or perhaps the rules are a bit different in California. Maybe Exclsuive really would mean what CIG want it to mean in that court.

Meanwhile, out of 5 charges CryTek listed originally, the GLA CIG for some strange reason has made public, appears to support 4 of them without doubt, with the fifth depending on the interpretation of "Exclusive".

It doesn't seem too likely that the case will be dismissed.

Leonard French's opinion on this matter does have value. It is "correct" in that the defence CIG has pushed does appear to have some degree of merit. It is a defence that can plausibly succeed.

That doesn't make him right though. Much as I want to see Star Citizen succeed, I do not believe this case will be dismissed simply on the basis of CIGs response.

[Miyani]

That doesn't make him right though. Much as I want to see Star Citizen succeed, I do not believe this case will be dismissed simply on the basis of CIGs response.

Oh wow you trying to kill me or something, i haven't had a laugh that hard in a while. You are probably the biggest doomsayer on here and have done nothing but want the games failure from all the stuff i have personally read of yours. I have to disagree with your personal interpretation though. But i'm not a lawyer nor pretend to be so i will not pretend to know the future outcome like some on here do.

As for those saying Leonard French is biased it would seem they haven't actually watched the video or his previous one he released when the lawsuit was first published by crytek, he is pretty much the most unbiased i have seen reviewing the legal documents. As for the fact he is a player he's dropped no more than the starter package and hasn't even played it yet as stated in his actual video. He is a wait and see guy who would like the game to succeed but said it will be what it will be if it doesn't.




Here is a link to his first video for when he reviews cryteks claims before CIG had the chance to respond.

[CogsNCocks]

KyrtF is the Derek Smart of mmo-champion.

[CogsNCocks]

Yeah, time to go back at calling others haters, doomsayers, Derek Smart’s and the fuck not so that we can accuse them after of trash posting and dragging the thread off-topic right after… it always ends well.

Fair enough, I'll refrain until after we have an outcome on the lawsuit and then I'll point at laugh at his ridiculous mental gymnastics, and then point and laugh again when he attempts to backward rationalize or try and explain why the courts are wrong and he's still correct.

- - - Updated - - -

*snip*

Well, I wasn't that far off. Looks like the pair of them are mates lol

Birds of feather, fly together. Is that how the saying goes?

- - - Updated - - -

*snip*

Please don't name and shame others. Infracted. -Edge

[Nihilan]

Fair enough, I'll refrain until after we have an outcome on the lawsuit and then I'll point at laugh at his ridiculous mental gymnastics, and then point and laugh again when he attempts to backward rationalize or try and explain why the courts are wrong and he's still correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I wasn't that far off. Looks like the pair of them are mates lol

Birds of feather, fly together. Is that how the saying goes?

- - - Updated - - -

*snip*[/B]

This is how pathetic you are. Someone is talking very sensibly about the actual topic and all you assholes can do it make personal attacks. Fanaticism at its most blatant.

Just so you know, it is possible to want the game to succeed while also being completely critical of RSI/CGI's bullshit.

[CogsNCocks]

This is how pathetic you are. Someone is talking very sensibly about the actual topic and all you assholes can do it make personal attacks. Fanaticism at its most blatant.

Just so you know, it is possible to want the game to succeed while also being completely critical of RSI/CGI's bullshit.

There's nothing sensible about associating with Derek Smart, and anyone associating with such a person while giving him winky emotes and spreading his ideas on this forum is almost certainly someone who doesn't want the game to succeed. You have some research to do sir.

[Darkrulerxxx]

i'm pretty sure that i read somewhere within the agreement that there was a zero-damage clause so that no matter if Crytek has merit or wins this case, it will just waste everyone's time.

[CogsNCocks]

Yet you proceed to do even worse. I don’t even really know what to feel towards the fact that you went trough Derek Smart, a scamming butthurt wannabe game developer tweets just to find the dude’s reply though, I mean, one of the most arguments against “haters” in the thread is “Oh if you don’t like it why are you even wasting your precious time criticizing it?!” and then we get…. Well, this kind of crap o.O;

Also, don’t get me wrong, I’ll be perfectly honest here, English isn’t my native language and I’m also not trying to defend or accuse anyone of anything, but I got to admit that I might be having a little hard time interpreting those tweets, but isn’t he just pointing out that legally stuff can be interpreted slightly different from more regular kind of shit? Doesn’t that goes against the point that Derek’s trying to make there?

I look at Derek Smarts twitter because it's hilarious, not because "I'm looking through his tweets looking for his reply".

Yes he does seem to go against the point Derek's trying to make, but then you look back at KyrtF's recent posts and you can see he's buying into Derek's narrative and repeating some of his points. So who knows? Maybe he just argues with everyone and doesn't actually believe in anything.