Crytek Moves on Cloud Imperium Games

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,088
Crytek is suing Cloud Imperium for a couple of things, where the relationship has seemed to go off the rails. First and foremost is that Cloud Imperium used Crytek's CryEngine for a game that Cloud Imperium did not have license for, Squadron 42. Also attached to this is the fact that Cloud Imperium moved away from CryEngine for use in Star Citizen, which had previously been agreed by both companies to be the only game engine used for Star Citizen, which of course we all know that Cloud Imperium dropped CryEngine and moved the entire game to the Amazon Lumberyard engine. Fireworks have ensued! Squadron 42 currently sells for $45. Star Citizen, which is still in Alpha, but you can buy $275 ships from the gamedev. We all know Star Citizen has been discussed to death, but that does not keep it from being argued about every single day. Someone somewhere is laughing all the way to the bank however.

In December 2015 and January 2016, Defendants announced that Squadron 42, a singleplayer video game involving space combat, would be sold separately from Star Citizen as a standalone video game. FAC at. In early February 2016, Crytek notified Defendants that this plan violated the GLA because, according to Crytek, the license only permitted Defendants to embed CryEngine in Star Citizen and not in any other game. - - Defendants have not compensated Crytek for CryEngine’s use in Squadron 42. Thus, says Crytek, “Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryEngine without a license and in violation of copyright laws.”

Relatedly, the FAC alleges that the exclusive license contemplated by the GLA was also intended to limit Star Citizen’s video game platform foundation. In other words, the parties not only agreed that Defendants would use CryEngine in Star Citizen, and Star Citizen alone, but also that no other software “engine” would be used in Star Citizen. - - Yet, on December 23, 2016, Defendants announced in a press release that they were using a different engine in Star Citizen - the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
Is there a new development? Crytek has been going after them for this for a while. Last I heard was several months ago where Crytek was claiming they were only licensed for one game (although the contract stated Squadron 42 and Star citizen distinctly). CIG's counter arguments showed that part of the contract and pointed out that they aren't actually using the CryEngine but redesigned using Lumber Yard. Crytek also had some absurd claims that CIG was required to use CryEngine. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any new developments on the case in Months.

Here is the last of it I am familiar with:
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,636
I wonder how this works regarding pre-orders.

Technically they are selling pre-orders for squadron 42 and it seems like the engine devs should be paid at that point. But the game isn't actually out and the game dev could change the engine before launch, at which point should the engine devs have to give the money back? And In Crytek's defense CIG did secure a lot of money using their engine for tech demos, early alphas, videos, etc. it seems like they should be entitled to something.

I don't really care which way the case goes but seems like some interesting legal precedents for vaporware are going to be set. I think from a consumer protection standpoint it would be good if crytek wins some money. This would make it harder in the future for shady devs to take pre-order money without releasing a real product.
 

Axehandler

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
635
yes this was the conclusion to the motion to dismiss... here is the main finding for those wanting to skip reading a wall of text

--------------------------

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the MTD as
follows:

1. The MTD is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of all causes of action alleged
against Defendant RSI;
2. The MTD is GRANTED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the aspect of Plaintiff’s
cause of action for breach that is based on section 2.1.2’s “exclusive” grant to
embed CryEngine in the Game;
3. The MTD is DENIED insofar as the request to dismiss the cause of action for
breach of contract is premised on California Civil Code section 1655’s implied
Case 2:17-cv-08937-DMG-FFM Document 38 Filed 08/14/18 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:490
intiff’s claim for breach is predicated on CryEngine’s allegedly unauthorized use in Squadron 42;
4. The MTD is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s cause of action for copyright
infringement;
5. The MTD’s request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s prayers for relief is DENIED
with respect to monetary damages, injunctive relief, and statutory damages and
attorney’s fees, and GRANTED with respect to punitive damages;
6. The MTD’s alternative request that the Court strike allegations in paragraph 15 of
the FAC is DENIED.
 

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
So Squadron 42 is out or no? Haven't heard anything about it being release or anyone playing it to be honest.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,088
Yup but nobody has taken delivery of it yet. Which begs the question: Is writing the code without the license sufficient to get sued even if you never share it? Do preorders change that and if so what will this mean for pre orders in general?
You build and game based on an engine. Sell 1,000,000 copies, never ship. Seems inconsequential to me what the dev does with it. But I guess the courts will decide.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,142
I knew they were sharing Star Citizen early...but are they also sharing Squadron 42 early?
They are taking money for it, nonetheless. And they did market it using Cryengine. So even if the game is never released I think crytek is entitled to part of the profits. But of course we know there is no fair play in legal cases. Only bad rulings and slightly better rulings.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,403
So, the court has dismissed CryTek's claim that CIG was contractually required to exclusively use CryEngine to make Star Citizen. And the court has dismissed CryTek's request for the possibility of punitive damages. The remaining allegations are that CIG is using CryEngine in Squadron 42 without a license, and copyright-infringement.

So, the maximum losses CIG could face if they lose the court case looks like it could mostly be whatever licensing CryEngine for Squadron 42 would cost, plus lawyer fees. I don't know what the copyright-infringement could cost. Anyone have an idea?
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
They are taking money for it, nonetheless. And they did market it using Cryengine. So even if the game is never released I think crytek is entitled to part of the profits. But of course we know there is no fair play in legal cases. Only bad rulings and slightly better rulings.
It's this. Crytek and Scam Company had a licensing agreement (I assume since that's what they [Crytek] do with every company), Scam Company profited off using Crytek's IP and Crytek would like to be compensated for the use of their IP. Scam Company can change their engine over and over but profits made while using Cryengine have a licensing factor associated with them and Scam just wants to skirt it to fuck over another person/organization.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
550
IANAL and I'm not sure how this will all pan out when it comes to CryEngine/Lumberyard forking and license agreements and everything but what I'm pretty sure of is:

1. CryTek did a bunch of actual work putting together Croberts "Sizzle reel" which he used to get funding.
2. CryTek continued to do a bunch of work supporting CIG during development.
3. CIG pulled in 100+ million dollars while using CryEngine
4. CIGs principals have almost certainly personally made millions of dollars selling early access to a game made using CryEngine.

So for CIG to change a couple lines of code and say "lol we're using Lumberyard now, sorry CryTek" seems pretty bullshitty.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
IANAL and I'm not sure how this will all pan out when it comes to CryEngine/Lumberyard forking and license agreements and everything but what I'm pretty sure of is:

1. CryTek did a bunch of actual work putting together Croberts "Sizzle reel" which he used to get funding.
2. CryTek continued to do a bunch of work supporting CIG during development.
3. CIG pulled in 100+ million dollars while using CryEngine
4. CIGs principals have almost certainly personally made millions of dollars selling early access to a game made using CryEngine.

So for CIG to change a couple lines of code and say "lol we're using Lumberyard now, sorry CryTek" seems pretty bullshitty.

Yes and no.

1. Yes, likely.
2. Partially. One of the reasons CIG moved to lumberyard was for better support apparently.
3. Yes/No. They certainly pulled in some money while they had been using CryEngine, but not nearly all of it.
4. No. The early access has primarily used lumberyard.

So, the court has dismissed CryTek's claim that CIG was contractually required to exclusively use CryEngine to make Star Citizen. And the court has dismissed CryTek's request for the possibility of punitive damages. The remaining allegations are that CIG is using CryEngine in Squadron 42 without a license, and copyright-infringement.

So, the maximum losses CIG could face if they lose the court case looks like it could mostly be whatever licensing CryEngine for Squadron 42 would cost, plus lawyer fees. I don't know what the copyright-infringement could cost. Anyone have an idea?

Likely they will be charged some damages and profits for the pre-orders sold while using the cryengine for SC. Although since they switched to lumberyard they will most likely be adjusted because the final product will be using lumberyard.

They will likely be charges damages and profits for all squadron42 sales.

Plus all lawyer/court fees.

That is of course if they find in favor of Crytek, which is questionable. Likely there will be some compromise that comes out of all it I would think.
 
Last edited:

d8lock

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
684
Isn't Lumberyard to Cryengine what Windows 95 Plus was to Windows 95?
 

d8lock

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
684
I am sure someone already mentioned this, but I am at work and can't read the entire thread to see ... but it is CLEAR in the license agreement that CIG had approval for up to two games in use their engine. Every claim that Crytek has stated has been torn apart by real lawyers from different youtube channels. The fact they are actually going forward with this is just proof of how desperate they are.
Looks like the judge didn't agree with those youtube lawyers.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,452
I think it's even more complicated than that, given that Amazon presumably bought licensee and exclusivity rights during their negotiations with Crytek. That is, I'm not sure CIG even had much of a choice to switch to Lumberyard as the CryEngine acquisition may have included their contractual obligations. It'll be interesting to see if Amazon wades into this case and presumably Crytek certainly doesn't want to be across the table from Amazon
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
555
Come on man... Derek Smart?

He was right back when he wrote about the arguments earlier in the year and he does a fantastic job today of explaining it all. With examples direct from the judge.

Take Derek's ego and all the other bullshit out of it. Just read it.
 

Taldren

Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
521
Looks like the judge didn't agree with those youtube lawyers.
As you are ignorant of the judicial system I will clarify ... there is a high standard for something to be granted during a MTD, just because it was DENIED does not mean it won't easily be shown to be false during trial. Crytek is going to lose big, but they are desperate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Korrd
like this
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
555
Because they can't read English? Squadron 42 is explicitly named in the GLA. You can see it yourself if you bothered to read it. It's ON THE FIRST PAGE, ffs.

Better let the judge know then, bro. She doesn't agree. Read her entire ruling, including her notes. ffs.
 

d8lock

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
684
As you are ignorant of the judicial system I will clarify ... there is a high standard for something to be granted during a MTD, just because it was DENIED does not mean it won't easily be shown to be false during trial. Crytek is going to lose big, but they are desperate.
They probably are desperate. Good thing they have a $100+ million dollar lawsuit they're likely to win so they can get back to work on Crysis 4: Judgement Day.
 

Taldren

Gawd
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
521
Actually, they are going to win big.

You seem rather emotional and upset. Are you OK, commando?
Listen, snowflake ... I, unlike you, can debate something without getting emotionally invested. I take my position based on my ability to read the GLA for myself with my own legal understanding. You take yours based on opinions given to you by higher level trolls, such as Derek Smart, while being patted on the head and told how smart you are by your ability to regurgitate them. Feel free to continue your digital temper tantrum to cover up the lack of substance you have to support the conclusions given to you.
 

d8lock

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
684
Listen, snowflake ... I, unlike you, can debate something without getting emotionally invested. I take my position based on my ability to read the GLA for myself with my own legal understanding. You take yours based on opinions given to you by higher level trolls, such as Derek Smart, while being patted on the head and told how smart you are by your ability to regurgitate them. Feel free to continue your digital temper tantrum to cover up the lack of substance you have to support the conclusions given to you.
So clearly your ability to interpret the GLA is flawed. As evidenced by the judge's ruling.
 
Top