Crytek sues CIG over breach of contract during development of Star Citizen & SQ42

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I mean... depending on the original terms of the contract I can see this going either way. If CryTek wins it would mean a pretty spectacular as well as sudden failure for such a massive project.

Except for the part where they are asking to shut down the whole project. I'm not sure amazon would make enough money from this to completely cover for a failure on the scale of star freaking citizen and whatever further profits it may have produced.

I don't see how CryTek could force a full shut down. At worst, CIG could rebrand the game, and go through all assets and change any reference to Star Citizen to.. say.... "Space Citizen".

 

Yes, it would cost a lot of money and time to do, but it would certainly be survivable. Once they rebrand the game, they can continue to use Lumberyard at their discretion.

 

But it all comes down to the wording of the contract, and how the courts interpret things.

[Trik'Stari]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:16 PM, AresKrieger said:

Think you meant to say that, but great ideas are often hindered by terrible execution of course that is assuming this wasn't a scam from the get go (which is a possibility given the likely outcome)

That's what we need. Not just PC Gaming, but all gamers everywhere.

 

If Star Citizen doesn't succeed, we're doomed to being "content" with boring garbage like Dota, LoL, CS:GO, Overwatch, Pubg, etc. Boring, simple games that don't really do any universe building.

 

Games that honestly shouldn't be as popular as they are in this day and age.

 

We need something completely and utterly titanic. Something that will be so big and ridiculous and audacious that people simple won't be able to stay away, and as a result the gaming companies out there will actually have to try for the first time in a long time (except Nintendo who will continue sitting in the corner and eating glue, and still manage to turn a profit somehow).

 

Without real competition and effort, we can only have stagnation. That is what I see from the games mention above. They're simple and boring even compared to some of the more simplistic and cheap MMO's out there, yet they're more popular for some stupid fucking reason.

 

I simply want the community to reach for the goddamned stars. Not sit back and yell expletives at each other while playing the same boring dried up schlock that we've all played for god knows how long.

 

I'd rather get one Star Citizen every 10-15 years than a shiny new shit smeared Battlefront 2 or CS:GO every 2 years.

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That's what we need. Not just PC Gaming, but all gamers everywhere.

 

If Star Citizen doesn't succeed, we're doomed to being "content" with boring garbage like Dota, LoL, CS:GO, Overwatch, Pubg, etc. Boring, simple games that don't really do any universe building.

 

Games that honestly shouldn't be as popular as they are in this day and age.

 

We need something completely and utterly titanic. Something that will be so big and ridiculous and audacious that people simple won't be able to stay away, and as a result the gaming companies out there will actually have to try for the first time in a long time (except Nintendo who will continue sitting in the corner and eating glue, and still manage to turn a profit somehow).

 

Without real competition and effort, we can only have stagnation. That is what I see from the games mention above. They're simple and boring even compared to some of the more simplistic and cheap MMO's out there, yet they're more popular for some stupid fucking reason.

 

I simply want the community to reach for the goddamned stars. Not sit back and yell expletives at each other while playing the same boring dried up schlock that we've all played for god knows how long.

I agree with your sentiment. Sure, it probably won't reach some deadlines. And sure, they probably DID bite off more than they could chew initially.

 

But all you need to do is visit their site, watch the videos, see the progress. They are making amazing progress all the time. The game is HUGE. People compare it to PUBG, which is frankly ridiculous. PUBG has one map, which is just an island, with some buildings, etc.

 

Star Citizen, which is still in Alpha, has an entire solar system. Alpha 3.0 looks crazy good already. They will be expanding additional solar systems after the new year (I believe Alpha 4.0?) - though it might be a while before 4.0 arrives, as they have 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 slated still.

 

A better comparison would be GTA V, which took something like 7 years to develop.

 

And I don't even keep up with dev progress, this is just what I hear around the net and then occasionally go take a peek.

 

People think that a long dev time = a doomed to fail game.

 

That's simply not true. The main difference is that in a game like GTA V or Skyrim, they aren't even talking about it until it's a year or two from release. Whereas Star Citizen is showing us every aspect of the dev process. It's a slow process, with any game.

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree with your sentiment. Sure, it probably won't reach some deadlines. And sure, they probably DID bite off more than they could chew initially.

 

But all you need to do is visit their site, watch the videos, see the progress. They are making amazing progress all the time. The game is HUGE. People compare it to PUBG, which is frankly ridiculous. PUBG has one map, which is just an island, with some buildings, etc.

 

Star Citizen, which is still in Alpha, has an entire solar system. Alpha 3.0 looks crazy good already. They will be expanding additional solar systems after the new year (I believe Alpha 4.0?) - though it might be a while before 4.0 arrives, as they have 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 slated still.

 

A better comparison would be GTA V, which took something like 7 years to develop.

 

And I don't even keep up with dev progress, this is just what I hear around the net and then occasionally go take a peek.

 

People think that a long dev time = a doomed to fail game.

 

That's simply not true. The main difference is that in a game like GTA V or Skyrim, they aren't even talking about it until it's a year or two from release. Whereas Star Citizen is showing us every aspect of the dev process. It's a slow process, with any game.

I agree.

 

And I wonder what all they haven't shown us. How does mining work? How does salvage work? How will ship-to-ship or ship-to-space-station boarding actions work? What about space-station-to-ship boarding actions, or hell, even ship-to-planet combat?

 

There's so much they can do with it if people would just quit nay-saying and root for awesomeness.

[bowrilla]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

I mean... depending on the original terms of the contract I can see this going either way. If CryTek wins it would mean a pretty spectacular as well as sudden failure for such a massive project.

Except for the part where they are asking to shut down the whole project. I'm not sure amazon would make enough money from this to completely cover for a failure on the scale of star freaking citizen and whatever further profits it may have produced.

They're asking for it to be shut down in order to get more money when reaching an agreement. As of now the payment they're asking for isn't that big for a company. Since shutting down a project like Star Citizen might cost developers dozens of millions Crytek might offer to refrain from shutting it all down in return of 6 or 7 figured payment. It's pure strategy and nothing else.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I agree.

 

And I wonder what all they haven't shown us. How does mining work? How does salvage work? How will ship-to-ship or ship-to-space-station boarding actions work? What about space-station-to-ship boarding actions, or hell, even ship-to-planet combat?

 

There's so much they can do with it if people would just quit nay-saying and root for awesomeness.

Indeed. I really want to see those ideas put into action. They've talked about how you will be able to board an enemy ship by either blasting/burning through the hull, or hacking the security system to override the door. But if you do so, it'll vent the atmosphere of the ship, meaning you have to keep your suit on (or fix the ship).

 

And in theory if a crew has a larger ship (corvette sized, etc) where it has an honest to god docking bay, you could salvage the entire ship and tug it home with you.

 

The Alpha 3.0 run through they did during the 3.0 announcement was fucking awesome (even with the bugs). Especially since the testers took a mission, and then another group of testers were then given a mission to counter the first players mission (meaning the system is intelligent enough to use an algorithm to generate an opposing mission for players who want to play on an opposing faction).

 

Personally I'm much more excited for SQ42, since frankly I love single player campaigns. Jumping into the Player Universe after is just a bonus.

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't see how CryTek could force a full shut down.

 

Is it really that easy to switch game engines? 

[AresKrieger]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

There's so much they can do with it if people would just quit nay-saying and root for awesomeness.

I'm not a nay sayer rather I'm a realist and when I see evidence of a scam I steer clear of said thing and voice to others that thing x is likely a scam.

 

Can't have hopes dashed if you had none in the first place, only amazing surprise if something actually pans out.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Is it really that easy to switch game engines? 

They don't need to. They already have. They're using Lumberjack by Amazon. Sure it's basically CryEngine with modifications and improvements, but it's enough different for CryTek to... wait for it... CryFowl (ba-dum-tiss).

 

If they needed to fully port the game to something like Unreal Engine? Sure, that would fucking suck and would no doubt add 3-4 years to dev time. But I don't think they would need to pursue such a drastic option.

[suchamoneypit]

only over $75,000? Thats nothing for a game backed with 139 million. But the other bit of stopping development is pretty significant. The PR disaster of causing that game to be canceled over copyright would cost crytek a lot more than $75,000. 

 

Are they just suing and going for a out of court settlement? If they case goes through all the way I mean I've got to say it seems they definitely did infringe on the copyright.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

They don't need to. They already have. They're using Lumberjack by Amazon. Sure it's basically CryEngine with modifications and improvements, but it's enough different for CryTek to... wait for it... CryFowl (ba-dum-tiss).

 

If they needed to fully port the game to something like Unreal Engine? Sure, that would fucking suck and would no doubt add 3-4 years to dev time. But I don't think they would need to pursue such a drastic option.

But they would have to make sure it doesn't contain code that isn't covered by Amazon's license and is solely cryteks

That's can be alot of work considering many old employees of crytek is on this

 

This is why i talked about silicon knights vs epic

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

They don't need to. They already have. They're using Lumberjack by Amazon. Sure it's basically CryEngine with modifications and improvements, but it's enough different for CryTek to... wait for it... CryFowl (ba-dum-tiss).

 

If they needed to fully port the game to something like Unreal Engine? Sure, that would fucking suck and would no doubt add 3-4 years to dev time. But I don't think they would need to pursue such a drastic option.

I know they switched to lumber (because obvious reasons), but if crytech get their way, then Star citizen as it is cannot merely be renamed to avoid contractual obligations. Surely if CIG signed a contract saying they would use cryengine for SC, then switch, the only way they could avoid a product injunction would be to create a whole new product using a whole new engine.

 

The worst thing about this is whether or not the law would view SQ42 as a separate product to SC or given the interlinked advertising and crowd funding etc, that the courts would view it as one game only with two different versions.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

But they would have to make sure it doesn't contain code that isn't covered by Amazon's license and is solely cryteks

That's can be alot of work considering many old employees of crytek is on this

 

This is why i talked about silicon knights vs epic

I'm not so sure that would be a problem. They already switched over to the Lumberjack codebase, which from what I understand, is very similar to CryEngine (being based on it after all). As far as I understand, Amazon fully licensed CryEngine to develop Lumberjack.

 

So in theory, there isn't any code in SC that could be unlicensed by Lumberjack.

 

Granted, we're not lawyers nor expert software engineers with insight into the SC codebase, so we're just making assumptions on much of this.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I know they switched to lumber (because obvious reasons), but if crytech get their way, then Star citizen as it is cannot merely be renamed to avoid contractual obligations. Surely if CIG signed a contract saying they would use cryengine for SC, then switch, the only way they could avoid a product injunction would be to create a whole new product using a whole new engine.

 

The worst thing about this is whether or not the law would views SQ42 as a separate product to SC or given the interlinked advertising and crowd funding etc that the courts would view it as one game just two different versions.

Yes if CryTek gets their way, but I don't think they will. It all comes down to that Contract. It would be kind of insane for the contract to be so detailed as to lay out, in depth, what "makes" Star Citizen, enough so that rebranding the game would be blocked.

 

Hell, that would severely hamper development, since they would be limited in design choices and future direction of the game.

 

I myself am not overly worried about Star Citizen. I will await more information as the case evolves. If anyone gets new information, be sure to update.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm not so sure that would be a problem. They already switched over to the Lumberjack codebase, which from what I understand, is very similar to CryEngine (being based on it after all). As far as I understand, Amazon fully licensed CryEngine to develop Lumberjack.

 

So in theory, there isn't any code in SC that could be unlicensed by Lumberjack.

 

Granted, we're not lawyers nor expert software engineers with insight into the SC codebase, so we're just making assumptions on much of this.

 

Yes if CryTek gets their way, but I don't think they will. It all comes down to that Contract. It would be kind of insane for the contract to be so detailed as to lay out, in depth, what "makes" Star Citizen, enough so that rebranding the game would be blocked.

 

Hell, that would severely hamper development, since they would be limited in design choices and future direction of the game.

 

I myself am not overly worried about Star Citizen. I will await more information as the case evolves. If anyone gets new information, be sure to update.

Didn't amazon license cry engine 3

But cry engine is on 5?

 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes if CryTek gets their way, but I don't think they will. It all comes down to that Contract. It would be kind of insane for the contract to be so detailed as to lay out, in depth, what "makes" Star Citizen, enough so that rebranding the game would be blocked.

 

I know contracts of this nature can get quite detailed, but so far all we have to go on is essentially crytech claiming SC would use the cryengine exclusively.  Assuming that holds up, I just can't see a court allowing SC to be simply renamed to get out of its contract.  

[pas008]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I know contracts of this nature can get quite detailed, but so far all we have to go on is essentially crytech claiming SC would use the cryengine exclusively.  Assuming that holds up, I just can't see a court allowing SC to be simply renamed to get out of its contract.  

I still want to know when renaming a project got them out of possible legal commitment especially given their well documented progress

Id even except movies, tv shows, etc as an example

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I still want to know when renaming a project got them out of possible legal commitment especially given their well documented progress

Id even except movies, tv shows, etc as an example

It was a thought posed earlier in the thread. Whilst I ma not aware of any software related cases, there are a few similar (but not the same) situations where a business has essentially changed names to avoid contractual/legal obligations.  GMC in Australia essentially did it (the head company separated when they went into receivership then opened a new firm building the same tools under a different name a few years later, now 909/triton),  and many constructions firms use loopholes in company law to avoid personal responsibility (builder starts a company, puts all the building licenses under that companies name, draws a nice wage for himself, then when things go pear shaped he sacks himself and lets the company be liquidated debt and all, then he goes and starts a new company and  does it all over a gain.  

 

 

[Prysin]

Sueing a ponzi scheme..... Tell me how that is going to work out for you, Crytek

[ADM-Ntek]

i find it funny how many people call Star Citizen a scam. most MMOs take 5-7 years and don't have nearly the scale. and like dalekphalm said GTAV took 7 yeas and they had a established studio. CIG has been working for almost 5 years and they are making both a MMO and a extensive single player game. 

 

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, pas008 said:

Didn't amazon license cry engine 3

But cry engine is on 5?

 

 

Indeed, but CryTek didn't release Ver. 5 until 2016. Lumberyard licensed the tech

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know contracts of this nature can get quite detailed, but so far all we have to go on is essentially crytech claiming SC would use the cryengine exclusively.  Assuming that holds up, I just can't see a court allowing SC to be simply renamed to get out of its contract.  

Indeed, it all comes down to the contract terms.

12 hours ago, pas008 said:

I still want to know when renaming a project got them out of possible legal commitment especially given their well documented progress

Id even except movies, tv shows, etc as an example

That's speculation. I don't think anyone here is a legal expert, and none of us have seen the contract. But depending on the wording, rebranding may well be a viable option.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed, but CryTek didn't release Ver. 5 until 2016. Lumberyard licensed the tech

Indeed, it all comes down to the contract terms.

That's speculation. I don't think anyone here is a legal expert, and none of us have seen the contract. But depending on the wording, rebranding may well be a viable option.

I still want to know when rebranding  has got a company out of legal troubles from contracts

I know it has for the sake of the brand name but not for the project, because we should see many movies be rebranded for that sake,

 

oh wait movies projects already change names throughout the whole process all the time but the contracts remain

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I still want to know when rebranding  has got a company out of legal troubles from contracts

I know it has for the sake of the brand name but not for the project, because we should see many movies be rebranded for that sake,

I don't have any examples to give you. But that does not invalidate my point.

 

There have been many examples where movies changed the name of the movie (and also changed the name of characters, and other details, while otherwise keeping the plot/story/set design, etc, the same), because they didn't have (or lost) the license to the IP they were basing the movie off of.

 

That of course is not an apples to apples comparison. I do not think there is an apples to apples comparison, as I've never heard of this exact issue before. This may not have ever been tested in this context before.

 

As mentioned multiple times, this is just a hypothetical scenario that might play out. It may not even come to that (In fact, I HIGHLY doubt it will).

 

CryTek will either lose, or they will settle. They won't block SC development.

 

Why do I know this? Because it's not in their best interest. If they win (or have a good case), it's in their best interest for SC to be released and make millions upon millions of dollars, so that CryTek can have all that sweet licensing income.

 

I could be wrong, but I really doubt it.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't have any examples to give you. But that does not invalidate my point.

 

There have been many examples where movies changed the name of the movie (and also changed the name of characters, and other details, while otherwise keeping the plot/story/set design, etc, the same), because they didn't have (or lost) the license to the IP they were basing the movie off of.

 

That of course is not an apples to apples comparison. I do not think there is an apples to apples comparison, as I've never heard of this exact issue before. This may not have ever been tested in this context before.

 

As mentioned multiple times, this is just a hypothetical scenario that might play out. It may not even come to that (In fact, I HIGHLY doubt it will).

 

CryTek will either lose, or they will settle. They won't block SC development.

 

Why do I know this? Because it's not in their best interest. If they win (or have a good case), it's in their best interest for SC to be released and make millions upon millions of dollars, so that CryTek can have all that sweet licensing income.

 

I could be wrong, but I really doubt it.

silicon knights vs epic games case is pretty damn close

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

silicon knights vs epic games case is pretty damn close

So I read up a bit on that case. There are significant differences that mean the outcome of that case does not automatically mean the outcome of this will be the same.

 

For one thing, Epic doesn't really need the money from licensing. CryTek on the other hand, is in dire straits, and licensing income from SC could save them, or otherwise make them a ton of money. Way more than they would get from blocking the game outright.

 

Second, Silicon Knights sued Epic first, starting the whole thing.

 

Third, Silicon Knights were countersued for using unlicensed Unreal Engine 3 technology in their own engine. This is important. This is entirely a different set of context. SC is using Lumberyard now, which is a fully licensed derivative of CryEngine. Silicon Knights decided to make their own engine by stealing the code from Unreal Engine 3. Very different.

 

Is it possible that SC is using CryEngine tech not licensed by Lumberyard? Sure, it's possible. But no one has claimed that, so I could just as easily say Chris Roberts is guilty of murdering the CryTek CEO's cat.

 

Really what it comes down to, is whether the contract actually allows CIG to "switch" engines from CryEngine to Lumberyard, because of that exclusivity clause.

 

The case you keep mentioning may seem similar on the surface, but the important details and the context is so incredibly different, that we cannot make any conclusions from it.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So I read up a bit on that case. There are significant differences that mean the outcome of that case does not automatically mean the outcome of this will be the same.

 

For one thing, Epic doesn't really need the money from licensing. CryTek on the other hand, is in dire straits, and licensing income from SC could save them, or otherwise make them a ton of money. Way more than they would get from blocking the game outright.

 

Second, Silicon Knights sued Epic first, starting the whole thing.

 

Third, Silicon Knights were countersued for using unlicensed Unreal Engine 3 technology in their own engine. This is important. This is entirely a different set of context. SC is using Lumberyard now, which is a fully licensed derivative of CryEngine. Silicon Knights decided to make their own engine by stealing the code from Unreal Engine 3. Very different.

 

Is it possible that SC is using CryEngine tech not licensed by Lumberyard? Sure, it's possible. But no one has claimed that, so I could just as easily say Chris Roberts is guilty of murdering the CryTek CEO's cat.

 

Really what it comes down to, is whether the contract actually allows CIG to "switch" engines from CryEngine to Lumberyard, because of that exclusivity clause.

 

The case you keep mentioning may seem similar on the surface, but the important details and the context is so incredibly different, that we cannot make any conclusions from it.

didnt silicon knights originally sue epic for breach of contract on their license?

but ended up still having code still existing in it after developing their own?