Crytek Moves on Cloud Imperium Games

The early access has primarily used lumberyard.

Well that's open to question. Yes, Roberts claimed they switched to Lumberyard in "two days" or something ridiculous, except in their infinite ineptitude they went on to release various Bugsmashers video episodes which clearly showed them working with CryEngine source code, and I seem to recall they were even advertising for a developer with experience using GUI tools which are native to CryEngine and not supplied with Lumberyard.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've been scrambling to erase all traces of CryEngine from their codebase ever since the lawsuit hit. It would certainly explain the minimal progress they've made with their actual games.

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

Urgh, if only. He started off as an interesting and valuable counterpoint to Roberts' constant bullshit, but for the last year or two he's been almost equally unbearable.
 
Last edited:
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.

2. Lol, they said they weren't even taking new versions of cryengine for a year before making the move to lumberyard, it's a bit hard to claim lack of support if you don't even take new versions of the code.
3. Muhahaha, some money, the lumberyard switch was announced at the end of 2016. They took 140 million until then.
4. The first version that used lumberyard was 2.6.

Where is the line between being an apologist and being dishonest?
 
2. Lol, they said they weren't even taking new versions of cryengine for a year before making the move to lumberyard, it's a bit hard to claim lack of support if you don't even take new versions of the code.
3. Muhahaha, some money, the lumberyard switch was announced at the end of 2016. They took 140 million until then.
4. The first version that used lumberyard was 2.6.

Where is the line between being an apologist and being dishonest?

I am confused by your intention in this post? What was dishonest or apologist in my statement?

2. New code is hardly the only means of support and there are many reasons why a company would choose not to use new code rollouts. The support is expert support from staff. Also, I am only going by what they said, thus the 'apparently'.
3. Okay. How much money have they taken in since the announced switch? Do you know the exact amounts? It certainly is not all of it.
4. I will concede this point, I haven't followed it really that closely per release on early access. The point is that there have been sales based on early access that has not included CryEngine. So some determination must be made on that, and it is not the entirety of their sales.
 
Here's Derek's take. Everyone is going to want to read this. All of it. It includes the Judge's notes which are pretty damning against CIG.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029687504205688832.html
Derek Smart is a fucking lunatic and an arsehole. Tbf, Chris Roberts is also an arsehole, so there we are.

That being as it may, that thread is still quite handy for distilling some of the pertinent points, once you filter out Smart's hyperbole and more outlandish predictions of CIG being on the hook for tens of millions etc, etc.
 
Despite my misgivings about the current state of Star Citizen and their increasingly shitty funding model, the Crytek Lawsuit is BS. The fact that there was no a dismissal should not be surprising to anyone with any legal knowledge. to get a dismissal CIG would need to show that Crytek had absolutely no ground whatsoever to argue for damages which is basically impossible. However there won't be any sort of an injunction on development the basis for such an injunction would be Cryteks claim that CIG agreed to exclusively use Cryengine in the development of Star Citizen. If you actually read the dismissal the court basically agrees with CIG that cryteks claim on that particular issue is BS and does not hold legal water. Now crytek could claim that CIG breached contract by developing a second game with their engine without permission however their own assertion that CIG switched engines (I.E the claim discussed above) directly contradicts that so they basically cooked their own goose there.

Now where Crytek may have a case for some damages is their third claim of copyright infringement. If their logo's/coe were shown at any point after CIG switched engines (they were and there is copious amounts of publicly available video evidence) then Crytek would likely be entitled to some monetary compensation. That being said it wouldn't be anything insane probably a few million at most. Most likely this all gets settled out of court and crytek nets a few million dollars. That being said if Crytek really wants to stick it to CIG they could force the issue into a court room refuse to settle then contrive a reason to force CIG to disclose their full financials in court thus making them public record which I doubt would make CIG to happy.
 
I agree with that with the caveat that, as I mentioned earlier, there is 3rd party involvement here that changes the license and licensee terms substantially. We do not yet know the terms Amazon entered into with Crytek to own lumberyard. There may in fact be language in that agreement mandating or otherwise allowing lumberyard licensees to advertise cryengine. It's a lot more complicated than can be discussed in this thread and especially with people who don't have a lot of formal legal training.

That aside, crytek's case being pre-emptively eviscerated by the judge is huge.
 
Now crytek could claim that CIG breached contract by developing a second game with their engine without permission however their own assertion that CIG switched engines (I.E the claim discussed above) directly contradicts that so they basically cooked their own goose there.

No. By CIG's own admission, they began selling SQ42 as a separate game in Feb '16. The Lumberyard switch, again by CIG's own words, happened in Dec '16. Therefore, there was a time period that CIG used CryEngine to develop SQ42 between 02/16 and 12/16.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
Be a real shame if this bankrupted cig.

They'll probably just reintroduce previously sold "exclusives" as a second chance offer to raise the funds to pay crytek.
 
there still is NO game to even play.. so this is odd to me

Um, yeah, there is. My brother has been playing for a couple years now. Just because it's "early access" doesn't mean you can't buy and play it today...
 
How exactly was Crytek's case eviscerated? I see it as just the opposite.
A judge took Crytek's complaint and rejected half of the claims before they even stepped into the courtroom to present evidence and you see that as a positive development for their case?
 
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.

Last time I checked primarily didn't mean entirely so it's actually:

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

And your "primarily" is bullshit anyway. Lumberyard didn't exist until 2016 and the first SC module released in 2013. There was a LOT of CryEngine early access and a LOT of money collected prior to Lumberyard.
 
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.

Lol, yeah you're not mad at all bro.
 
3. Okay. How much money have they taken in since the announced switch? Do you know the exact amounts? It certainly is not all of it.

Me: They took in over 100 mill using CryEngine.
You: Yes/No. They certainly pulled in some money while they had been using CryEngine, but not nearly all of it.
M76: Muhahaha, some money, the lumberyard switch was announced at the end of 2016. They took 140 million until then.
You: Okay. How much money have they taken in since the announced switch? Do you know the exact amounts? It certainly is not all of it.

If you want to know how much they've taken in why don't you spend 20 seconds googling it instead of making repeated incorrect assumptions. The only person that said "nearly all of it" was you, chief.
 
A judge took Crytek's complaint and rejected half of the claims before they even stepped into the courtroom to present evidence

You haven't read the ruling, have you? Take off the CIG rose-colored glasses and read it with an open mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
You haven't read the ruling, have you? Take off the CIG rose-colored glasses and read it with an open mind.
Look, I'm not going to argue with laypersons about how the law operates. If you want to learn from some of us that's cool and all, but none of us in this thread with proper legal training are under any obligation to try and litigate this case on the side with you. If that's what you're after, go bother someone else. The facts are that a major portion of Crytek's claim was rejected prior to trial and that any damages they can claim are limited to true damages, which aren't much relative to the kinds of money changing hands in these kinds of cases.

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;

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;


This might be confusing to laypersons so I'll explain it: MTD is a motion to dismiss. When you see motion to dismiss is granted, that simply means CIG prevailed in front of the court on the legal merits of the case. There was no trial yet. This was simply a judge reading briefs about the legal authorities regarding what does and does not constitutes the claimed violation. Motion to dismiss denial doesn't mean Crytek wins, it simply means they now have to argue their case in court. That's all they won, the ability to present their case. CIG won the ability to knock portions of the case completely out of the conversation. Their positions are asymmetrical.

Whatever else you think is true, this is a big win for CIG because they will never have to defend against this claim in court. This is a big loss for Crytek because they can now not argue this point in court. Obviously, if you file a case with the court you want to argue that case in front of the court and present your evidence. A judge telling you that you have no case at all and that you can not even bring your evidence about it to a court is a big setback for your case by definition!

The second point limits all monetary claims to true damages. The punitive damages referred to are money judgements that punish ("punitive") litigants for bad behavior. They are exorbitant costs intended to put the entity, and other entities, on notice that they have behaved badly and society is slapping them on the wrist. Those are the multi-million dollar judgments you read about (that often get scaled back to reality on appeal).

Crytek can not even ask a judge or jury for punitive damages. They can slap a very high price tag on their case, maybe millions or maybe tens of millions of dollars but they can't scare CIG into folding now. CIG can't be on the hook for hundreds of millions or possibly billions. They are now in a low exposure position, which is the best for lawsuits.

Lawsuits are not about winning vs. losing, although people can be forgiven for thinking that way. The first thing your lawyer, if a good one, will tell you is that the truth or whatever doesn't mean shit and that the only thing that matters is exposure--whether that means exposure to millions in liability or exposure to decades in prison it's all the same. An attorney's job is to minimize your legal exposure and that's "winning" in law.
 
I see the Star citizen defense squad is out in force.

Regardless of spin, the abundance of issues around the Star Citizen product/brand is telling enough. This is just one more log on the fire.
 
Whatever else you think is true, this is a big win for CIG because they will never have to defend against this claim in court. This is a big loss for Crytek because they can now not argue this point in court. Obviously, if you file a case with the court you want to argue that case in front of the court and present your evidence. A judge telling you that you have no case at all and that you can not even bring your evidence about it to a court is a big setback for your case by definition!
So? There are other points.

The second point limits all monetary claims to true damages. The punitive damages referred to are money judgements that punish ("punitive") litigants for bad behavior. They are exorbitant costs intended to put the entity, and other entities, on notice that they have behaved badly and society is slapping them on the wrist. Those are the multi-million dollar judgments you read about (that often get scaled back to reality on appeal).

Crytek can not even ask a judge or jury for punitive damages. They can slap a very high price tag on their case, maybe millions or maybe tens of millions of dollars but they can't scare CIG into folding now. CIG can't be on the hook for hundreds of millions or possibly billions. They are now in a low exposure position, which is the best for lawsuits.
So? CIG is desperate for money to stay afloat. Tens of millions, even just millions, would hurt them badly.
 
Despite my misgivings about the current state of Star Citizen and their increasingly shitty funding model, the Crytek Lawsuit is BS. The fact that there was no a dismissal should not be surprising to anyone with any legal knowledge. to get a dismissal CIG would need to show that Crytek had absolutely no ground whatsoever to argue for damages which is basically impossible. However there won't be any sort of an injunction on development the basis for such an injunction would be Cryteks claim that CIG agreed to exclusively use Cryengine in the development of Star Citizen. If you actually read the dismissal the court basically agrees with CIG that cryteks claim on that particular issue is BS and does not hold legal water. Now crytek could claim that CIG breached contract by developing a second game with their engine without permission however their own assertion that CIG switched engines (I.E the claim discussed above) directly contradicts that so they basically cooked their own goose there.
DkpOlFHXoAAhJfb.jpg
 


yeah and if you actually read the whole brief instead of quoting it out of context you would see that the judge didn't dismiss this case because they think crytek's claim is not so absurd that there flat out is no case to be made. however if you actually read the courts opion not the accusations by crytek on the matter you will find the following.

"
The GLA’s plain language and context support Defendants’ technical interpretation of
“exclusively.” A license is a grant of permission or authority to do any particular thing.
Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Technologies, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007). In
the copyright context, “exclusive” and “nonexclusive” qualify the scope of the licensor’s grant and
therefore the licensee’s rights as against third parties. See Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2015) (holder of a nonexclusive license “has been granted
rights only vis-à-vis the licensor, not vis-à-vis the world,” whereas holder of an exclusive license
“has been granted rights vis-à-vis the world”). As the Ninth Circuit explained recently, “the
essence of an ‘exclusive’ license under the [Copyright] Act is that ‘the copyright holder permits
the licensee to use the protected material for a specific use and further promises that the same
permission will not be given to others.’” Id. at 1005 (emphasis added) (quoting I.A.E., Inc. v.
Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 1996)) (“Under the [relevant agreements], [plaintiff] is the ‘sole
and exclusive agent and representative with respect to the Licensing of any and all uses’ of the
photographs. That is, the photographers have promised that [plaintiff], and only [plaintiff], will
have the power, as the photographers’ licensing agent, to authorize third parties to reproduce,

distribute, and display the photographs.”). Thus, in the GLA—a licensing agreement concerning
the use of a work protected in copyright—“exclusively” retains its specialized, legal meaning.
Accordingly, section 2.1.2’s grant to Defendants “to exclusively embed CryEngine in [Star
Citizen]” means that only Defendants have the right to use Crytek’s software in the manner
prescribed. The term is not used to compel Defendants to use the software."

The exclusivity clause Crytek is trying to use as grounds for SC violation actually protects CIG's rights not theirs.
 
Thus, in the GLA—a licensing agreement concerning
the use of a work protected in copyright—“exclusively” retains its specialized, legal meaning.
Accordingly, section 2.1.2’s grant to Defendants “to exclusively embed CryEngine in [Star
Citizen]” means that only Defendants have the right to use Crytek’s software in the manner
prescribed. The term is not used to compel Defendants to use the software."

The exclusivity clause Crytek is trying to use as grounds for SC violation actually protects CIG's rights not theirs.
It should be obvious to any unbiased observers that the language restricting CIG from the "business of licensing" is intended to preclude CIG from taking their game engine and licensing it out to a 3rd party and not, as Crytek is trying to argue to the court, intended to restrict them from licensing a different engine.

I wrote as much I think it was last year when this first came to light. The contract, as Crytek interprets it, has multiple stipulations that are internally incompatible. Contracts aren't just automatically enforceable, the terms have to make sense and be not outrageous. Crytek can't simultaneously argue that CIG can't use their engine to make a game and then also argue they can't license someone else's license to make that game. That's not really what happened anyway, but that's what they are trying to argue before the court. The court has already rightfully seen through some of the bluster.

So? There are other points.


So? CIG is desperate for money to stay afloat. Tens of millions, even just millions, would hurt them badly.
So, it answers the questions posed to me.
 
Look, I'm not going to argue with laypersons about how the law operates. If you want to learn from some of us that's cool and all, but none of us in this thread with proper legal training are under any obligation to try and litigate this case on the side with you. If that's what you're after, go bother someone else. The facts are that a major portion of Crytek's claim was rejected prior to trial and that any damages they can claim are limited to true damages, which aren't much relative to the kinds of money changing hands in these kinds of cases.

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;

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;


This might be confusing to laypersons so I'll explain it: MTD is a motion to dismiss. When you see motion to dismiss is granted, that simply means CIG prevailed in front of the court on the legal merits of the case. There was no trial yet. This was simply a judge reading briefs about the legal authorities regarding what does and does not constitutes the claimed violation. Motion to dismiss denial doesn't mean Crytek wins, it simply means they now have to argue their case in court. That's all they won, the ability to present their case. CIG won the ability to knock portions of the case completely out of the conversation. Their positions are asymmetrical.

Whatever else you think is true, this is a big win for CIG because they will never have to defend against this claim in court. This is a big loss for Crytek because they can now not argue this point in court. Obviously, if you file a case with the court you want to argue that case in front of the court and present your evidence. A judge telling you that you have no case at all and that you can not even bring your evidence about it to a court is a big setback for your case by definition!

The second point limits all monetary claims to true damages. The punitive damages referred to are money judgements that punish ("punitive") litigants for bad behavior. They are exorbitant costs intended to put the entity, and other entities, on notice that they have behaved badly and society is slapping them on the wrist. Those are the multi-million dollar judgments you read about (that often get scaled back to reality on appeal).

Crytek can not even ask a judge or jury for punitive damages. They can slap a very high price tag on their case, maybe millions or maybe tens of millions of dollars but they can't scare CIG into folding now. CIG can't be on the hook for hundreds of millions or possibly billions. They are now in a low exposure position, which is the best for lawsuits.

Lawsuits are not about winning vs. losing, although people can be forgiven for thinking that way. The first thing your lawyer, if a good one, will tell you is that the truth or whatever doesn't mean shit and that the only thing that matters is exposure--whether that means exposure to millions in liability or exposure to decades in prison it's all the same. An attorney's job is to minimize your legal exposure and that's "winning" in law.
Are you one of the youtube lawyers in question?
 
Are you one of the youtube lawyers in question?
Look, I get it, that was a lot of words and big city thinking thrown your way. I'll simplify it:

Crytek took CIG to court over many issues.
Some of the issues have now been ruled by the court to be so weak as to not deserve a trial.
Some of the issues have now been ruled by the court that they at least deserve a trial.

What happened today doesn't tell us anything about the strength of either party's case.
All we can definitively say is that CIG benefits by at least some of the complaint being tossed out.

Now, if someone wants to believe that a court saying to one party that their complaint wasn't complete bullshit, just half of it, is a "win" for that party I think that's a relatively pathetic position to take. That's all that happened here, law degrees aside, youtube celebrity status notwithstanding.
 
Look, I get it, that was a lot of words and big city thinking thrown your way. I'll simplify it:

Crytek took CIG to court over many issues.
Some of the issues have now been ruled by the court to be so weak as to not deserve a trial.
Some of the issues have now been ruled by the court that they at least deserve a trial.

What happened today doesn't tell us anything about the strength of either party's case.
All we can definitively say is that CIG benefits by at least some of the complaint being tossed out.

Now, if someone wants to believe that a court saying to one party that their complaint wasn't complete bullshit, just half of it, is a "win" for that party I think that's a relatively pathetic position to take. That's all that happened here, law degrees aside, youtube celebrity status notwithstanding.
Spin it however you want. Bottom line is that this isn't going away.
 
And Crytek benefits even more by most of the complaint being able to proceed forward.
Crytek proceeds to court with less valid complaints than they started with and you call them benefiting even more than the party that managed to remove some of their complaints before the trial. You clearly have a personal bias.
 
yeah and if you actually read the whole brief instead of quoting it out of context you would see that the judge didn't dismiss this case because they think crytek's claim is not so absurd that there flat out is no case to be made. however if you actually read the courts opion not the accusations by crytek on the matter you will find the following.

"
The GLA’s plain language and context support Defendants’ technical interpretation of
“exclusively.” A license is a grant of permission or authority to do any particular thing.
Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Technologies, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2007). In
the copyright context, “exclusive” and “nonexclusive” qualify the scope of the licensor’s grant and
therefore the licensee’s rights as against third parties. See Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2015) (holder of a nonexclusive license “has been granted
rights only vis-à-vis the licensor, not vis-à-vis the world,” whereas holder of an exclusive license
“has been granted rights vis-à-vis the world”). As the Ninth Circuit explained recently, “the
essence of an ‘exclusive’ license under the [Copyright] Act is that ‘the copyright holder permits
the licensee to use the protected material for a specific use and further promises that the same
permission will not be given to others.’” Id. at 1005 (emphasis added) (quoting I.A.E., Inc. v.
Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 1996)) (“Under the [relevant agreements], [plaintiff] is the ‘sole
and exclusive agent and representative with respect to the Licensing of any and all uses’ of the
photographs. That is, the photographers have promised that [plaintiff], and only [plaintiff], will
have the power, as the photographers’ licensing agent, to authorize third parties to reproduce,

distribute, and display the photographs.”). Thus, in the GLA—a licensing agreement concerning
the use of a work protected in copyright—“exclusively” retains its specialized, legal meaning.
Accordingly, section 2.1.2’s grant to Defendants “to exclusively embed CryEngine in [Star
Citizen]” means that only Defendants have the right to use Crytek’s software in the manner
prescribed. The term is not used to compel Defendants to use the software."

The exclusivity clause Crytek is trying to use as grounds for SC violation actually protects CIG's rights not theirs.
That is not about section 2.4 on which merits the judge didn't comment.
DkpOCD6XcAIfb5s.jpg
 
Spin it however you want. Bottom line is that this isn't going away.
When did I say the case was going away? The level of discourse you and lightsout are sinking to is sophomoric.
That is not about section 2.4 on which merits the judge didn't comment.
Of course the judge didn't comment on that portion of the dispute. That's an interpretive portion of the contract and the judge isn't holding a hearing regarding the facts of the case so much as determining whether there are enough facts to move forward.

I don't know what lightsout and d8lock think Crytek "won" but they simply proceed to trial, just with less points to present to the jury. I guess they "won" on not getting the entire case thrown out, but that's a ridiculous low bar of "success" in a civil trial.

Yay, Crytek didn't make a civil claim up out of thin air. Granted. Moving along...

The issue as to whether stipulation in a contract, "you shall not engage in the business of licensing an engine in competition with CryEngine" (which I'm pretty sure would in all other situations be interpreted as CIG shall not create an engine and then license it to other people so that Crytek would have to compete with them, which is in fact what every single other element in that sentence applies to) is something a fact finder will have to conclude.

My personal opinion is this is where the case will hinge upon the interpretation of that key sentence. Do those words preclude CIG from licensing an engine *from* Amazon? Do they merely preclude CIG from engaging in the licensing of an engine, in competition with Crytek, *to* someone?

The answer to those two questions can only be arrived at by a jury (or judge in a bench trial), *not* during a pretrial motion to dismiss.
 
You clearly have a personal bias.

That aside, crytek's case being pre-emptively eviscerated by the judge is huge.

A judge took Crytek's complaint and rejected half of the claims

You obviously suck at math. Half the claims were not rejected. Crytek's case wasn't "eviscerated" since most of the content was allowed to continue on. Yes....even more than what CIG wanted thrown out.

Bias? (ad hominem) LOL....says the person completely ignoring everything going in Crytek's favor, while you cheer CIG's two "victories".

Let's bookmark this thread and come back when all is said and done. I predict Crytek prevails.
 
The issue as to whether stipulation in a contract, "you shall not engage in the business of licensing an engine in competition with CryEngine" (which I'm pretty sure would in all other situations be interpreted as CIG shall not create an engine and then license it to other people so that Crytek would have to compete with them, which is in fact what every single other element in that sentence applies to) is something a fact finder will have to conclude.

My personal opinion is this is where the case will hinge upon the interpretation of that key sentence. Do those words preclude CIG from licensing an engine *from* Amazon? Do they merely preclude CIG from engaging in the licensing of an engine, in competition with Crytek, *to* someone?

The answer to those two questions can only be arrived at by a jury (or judge in a bench trial), *not* during a pretrial motion to dismiss.
I don't think it's just that. "Promoting", "maintaining", etc. also come in question in either interpretation of licensing. It will be interesting to see how things progress.
 
I am confused by your intention in this post? What was dishonest or apologist in my statement?

2. New code is hardly the only means of support and there are many reasons why a company would choose not to use new code rollouts. The support is expert support from staff. Also, I am only going by what they said, thus the 'apparently'.
3. Okay. How much money have they taken in since the announced switch? Do you know the exact amounts? It certainly is not all of it.
4. I will concede this point, I haven't followed it really that closely per release on early access. The point is that there have been sales based on early access that has not included CryEngine. So some determination must be made on that, and it is not the entirety of their sales.

Of course I know the exact amount of money, they were flaunting it all over, it is public record. They even had graphs up on the site where you could see the exact amount they took by date. They took 140 million and at least some of it belongs to crytek, because they used their trademark to promote themselves.

The point is that Crytek has a case here, of course not for the entire amount, but cig is trying to weasel out the deal without giving them a penny it would seem.

And you're being an apologist because you're trying to understate the entire mess, like it's not a big deal. And the reasons you cited were false. I concede that you might be ill-informed and not dishonest.
 
Good job CIG isn't a public company, the SEC has *very* strong views on what is valid license revenue and when it can or should be recognized as such.

It's pretty screwy that from an accounting perspective that if it's not sales revenue (hey we're not selling anything , our defence says so) and it's not debt, then the presales are pretty much donations. I know it's normal, but as a business owner it leaves a bad taste. Damn respect for my customers and suppliers, I'll never get anywhere with that behaviour.

At this point I wish someone would do a Peter Thiel / Gawker on the whole thing just so it can stop being mismanaged and given to someone who can finish it.
 
Me: They took in over 100 mill using CryEngine.
You: Yes/No. They certainly pulled in some money while they had been using CryEngine, but not nearly all of it.
M76: Muhahaha, some money, the lumberyard switch was announced at the end of 2016. They took 140 million until then.
You: Okay. How much money have they taken in since the announced switch? Do you know the exact amounts? It certainly is not all of it.

If you want to know how much they've taken in why don't you spend 20 seconds googling it instead of making repeated incorrect assumptions. The only person that said "nearly all of it" was you, chief.

Actually I said not nearly all of it. If you are going to quote me and call me out, at least get it right. And that statement is true. Nearly all of it would be 80-100% of the money they have taken in. Even the 140million could be questionable. Crytek would still have to show that the whole 140million was acquired specifically because of or while using only Crytek's engine. that is why there is a court case. Even when you can show more direct correlation, companies rarely win the full award. That is the point of my statements. But please, keep arguing over semantics.
 
Back
Top