Crytek Responds to CIG's Request to Dismiss Star Citizen Case

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,913
Last month Crytek filed suit against Cloud Imperium and Roberts Space Industries for violating their contract for CryEngine. CIG filed a motion seeking dismissal, and today Crytek responded. Crytek pulls no punches in its response, fully outlining the broken promises from CIG. Some of the complaints include; switching development platforms, splitting "Squadron 42" into its own game when only having one license for CryEngine, and publishing source code of Crytek technology, and others.

Just another episode in the soap opera that is Star Citizen. At this point I don't think they will make that 2014 release date. Maybe they will get Squadron 42 out for that late 2017 release..wait.... You can read the full text of the court filing here.

Defendants say this action should never have been filed. Indeed, if only they had kept their promises, the action would never have ben filed. But now Crytek seeks to enforce its contractual rights and copyrights. Defendants deny any enforceable obligation to Crytek and move the court to dismiss Crytek’s claim entirely. Defendants’ argument simpy do not withstand scrutiny, and certainly cannot meet the demanding standard required to obtain dismissal of Crytek’s claims as a matter of law. The court should deny Defendants’ Motion and permit Crytek to proceed so that it may vindicate its rights.
 

doz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
6,110
Last month Crytek filed suit against Cloud Imperium and Roberts Space Industries for violating their contract for CryEngine. CIG filed a motion seeking dismissal, and today Crytek responded. Crytek pulls no punches in its response, fully outlining the broken promises from CIG. Some of the complaints include; switching development platforms, splitting "Squadron 42" into its own game when only having one license for CryEngine, and publishing source code of Crytek technology, and others.

Just another episode in the soap opera that is Star Citizen. At this point I don't think they will make that 2014 release date. Maybe they will get Squadron 42 out for that late 2017 release..wait.... You can read the full text of the court filing here.

Defendants say this action should never have been filed. Indeed, if only they had kept their promises, the action would never have ben filed. But now Crytek seeks to enforce its contractual rights and copyrights. Defendants deny any enforceable obligation to Crytek and move the court to dismiss Crytek’s claim entirely. Defendants’ argument simpy do not withstand scrutiny, and certainly cannot meet the demanding standard required to obtain dismissal of Crytek’s claims as a matter of law. The court should deny Defendants’ Motion and permit Crytek to proceed so that it may vindicate its rights.
And the dominoes begin to tumble. Surprised it took this long for a big lawsuit to come against them.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
Obama might have let this happen during his presidency, but under Trump Crytek will get justice. :ROFLMAO:
j/k

Still waiting on a game with my original backer thing. Someday.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
SC just reminds me of so many software projects I've seen over the years with a beginning, a muddle and no end. SC might end up being the best thing since cocaine smothered French Toast but this development process just isn't the way to do things.
 

Derfman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
1,220
Gotta cut back on the carbs somehow.;)

Darth Vader concurs.

183631_700b.jpg
 

DocNo

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
662
What an unsurprising turn of events. Should be fun when the other shoes inevitably start to drop. So glad I resisted the temptation to buy into this now more than obvious train wreck. Anyone who bought in after 2015 deserves any money they will inevitably loose. Fools and money and all that.
 
Last edited:

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Should be entertaining watching the contortions the die hard faithful go thorough to continue defending this.
 

Troz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
416


Isn't Squadron 42 a standalone game now tho? If so it is no longer a part of Star Citizen so excluded from the first part of the contract. They don't have a license to use CryEngine to develop Squadron42 as a standalone game.
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
Isn't Squadron 42 a standalone game now tho? If so it is no longer a part of Star Citizen so excluded from the first part of the contract. They don't have a license to use CryEngine to develop Squadron42 as a standalone game.
From Cryteks very own response:

gV6FPHr.jpg
 

EODetroit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,485


Crytek is committing suicide. That's the only thing I can conclude.

Isn't Squadron 42 a standalone game now tho? If so it is no longer a part of Star Citizen so excluded from the first part of the contract. They don't have a license to use CryEngine to develop Squadron42 as a standalone game.

You obviously didn't watch the video because he went over this exact point.
 

Troz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
416
From Cryteks very own response:

gV6FPHr.jpg
"the Game" My understanding is that S42 was a part of SC at first, but will now be a separate game meaning it doesn't fall under the license since it is it's own distinct title.
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
"the Game" My understanding is that S42 was a part of SC at first, but will now be a separate game meaning it doesn't fall under the license since it is it's own distinct title.

It makes specific mention right there in the contract that they are 2 separate games that have full permission to use the license. "and its related space fighter game SQ42".

There is no way to interpret what is written any other way than exactly what it states.



Crytek: "You can use our engine for the game Star Citizen and the game SQ42."
Crytek: "You cant use our engine for 2 games."


 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,259
Even with the way it is written there, I don't see merit in Crytek's complaint. For fuck's sake they even use the word "game" twice in the grant of rights! "the GAME entitled Space Citizen" [sic] and "its RELATED space fighter GAME Squadron 42"! They knew there were two related game projects as part of the overall "Star Citizen" project. As someone who backed Star Citizen back during its early/Kickstarter days, that was always what was known about it - "Star Citizen" was the name of the project as a whole. Within that, there would be the "Public Universe / Star Citizen" element, which is the MMO and self-hosted multiplayer online universe and "Squadron 42" which is the single player/co-op Wing Commander/Xwing like story-based campaign. Players would be able to transfer some data back and forth between the two parts of the project, such as players who complete SQ42 will get "SC/Public Universe" bonuses where you get "reserve pay" from the military, better faction with the military you served in within SQ42 etc. Clearly, these are two halves of one project from the very beginning and even with all the changes and developments over the years, that core attribute has not changed.

It appears that CryTek has a LOT of sour grapes, but I don't see lots of validity to their claims.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,451
I believe what CIG was largely in the realm of being legal - But generally it seems they fucked over Crytek from a moral standpoint. A lot of manhours/time/talent was wasted to support CIG on Crytek's behalf in the early days of Star Citizen and there still isn't shit to show for a game. I believe Crytek was banking on Star Citizen being a huge success.. But it isn't outside of just stealing money via donations and Crytek saw none of that cash, and now that they've moved to the free Amazon version of the engine Crytek won't see shit.

Where Crytek fucked up was selling their engine to Amazon for quick easy up-front cash. By doing this they pretty much made it so no one would bother paying Crytek for their own licensed version of the engine anymore.
 

hexamon

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
97
I would like to point out Crytek's law firm is the same one that successfully sued Facebook for Zenimax. They know what they are doing.
 

chili dog

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
243
Crytek doesn't pay their employees. CIG is a giant scam machine. I hope both companies' legal costs are so large that they both go under and in the end the case is just dismissed anyway.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,451
Crytek doesn't pay their employees. CIG is a giant scam machine. I hope both companies' legal costs are so large that they both go under and in the end the case is just dismissed anyway.

I don't - That new Hunt game looks pretty badass and is far more realistic in terms of being playable than star citizen.
 

HeltUrquad

n00b
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
2
Although two of the claims Crytek make, do make sense (lack of reciprocation of improvements/bug-fixes made to the engine, and lack of copyright/licensing/branding info displayed with the product), they still ONLY matter while using CryEngine, not Lumberyard.

Their claims that a (fairly standard) NON COMPETE CLAUSE meaning that CIG can ONLY use CryEngine for their GAME is bullshit - (it only means they cannot develop their own competing game ENGINE while using CryEngine for Star Citizen et al.). All complaints therefore about them moving to Lumberyard, and therefore anything made using Lumberyard INSTEAD of CryEngine, (their reading of 'exclusive' being the problem), being against the GLA are also bullshit, (UNLESS they can prove of evidence of such a contract separate from the GLA - though since the GLA is the only thing they reference, it's bullshit).

As to references of Star Citizen and Squadron 42 being regarded as 'the' game or 'games' (plural), the GLA is completely ambiguous, (are they amateurs?), and may depend entirely on application, (sharing the same game launcher as dictated), though as with the first claims above, it only matters while using CryEngine, NOT Lumberyard.

So long as Crytek cannot demonstrate that CIG's move to Lumberyard is not 'clean' (leaving no trace of CryEngine that's distinct from Lumberyard) - which is probably IMPOSSIBLE, since they're essentially the SAME THING, Crytek cannot prove breach of contract from CIG's move to Lumberyard. Any and all claims they have are ONLY relevant if they were breached contract while using CryEngine, not Lumberyard - which the first two certainly appear to be.

As to their claims of copyright infringement based on display of code - that could go either way.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,791
From Cryteks very own response:

gV6FPHr.jpg
Together hereafter the "game". So it's one game made up of two parts. Sold under one umbrella. Like for example Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars. They're not two separate titles. And CIG by dividing them into two distinct products are clearly breaking the original agreement, it's clear as day.

But if you still fully support cig after all that happened in the past 5 or so years, then I don't doubt that you have the capacity to read everything even the most damning evidence as favorable to cig.
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
Together hereafter the "game". So it's one game made up of two parts. Sold under one umbrella. Like for example Crysis Warhead and Crysis Wars. They're not two separate titles. And CIG by dividing them into two distinct products are clearly breaking the original agreement, it's clear as day.

But if you still fully support cig after all that happened in the past 5 or so years, then I don't doubt that you have the capacity to read everything even the most damning evidence as favorable to cig.

BWHAHAHAHAHAH

This is a gold place medal for the mental gymnastics folks. Now watch how he will try and claim another medal with his next response. You have to actually practice to be this dumb.




 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,688
BWHAHAHAHAHAH

This is a gold place medal for the mental gymnastics folks. Now watch how he will try and claim another medal with his next response. You have to actually practice to be this dumb.

No he's right, the original contract was for both games together. CIG split up Squadron and Star Citizen a couple of years ago as two separate purchases so Crytek is completely valid making such claims.
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
the original contract was for both games.

We know. Thankfully its printed in plain ol English right there in the contract . And so do actual lawyers(you know, those people that spent years learning this as a career).

gV6FPHr.jpg
 
Last edited:

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,688
We know. Thankfully its printed in plain ol English right there in the contract . And so do actual lawyers(you know, those people that spent years learning this as a career).

gV6FPHr.jpg

Yes I would know, I work in such career.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,688
Then please explain to us your credentials and where the ACTUAL lawyers got this one wrong...in detail please.

I work as a Litigation Specialist so I actually have to look at this stuff all day as part of the trial team. The wording may be confusing to you but it's not to me. You should look at the entire contract as a whole, it's obvious it specified one license for a singular game and addon component. These contracts are written up by legal teams not gamers so you need to give some leeway as to the wording. I am not saying all complaints listed are reasonable but the way it works is put all your issues up front and then see which ones stick. In all honesty I don't see this going to trial and both teams would be better off just reaching a settlement.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
I work as a Litigation Specialist so I actually have to look at this stuff all day as part of the trial team. The wording may be confusing to you but it's not to me. You should look at the entire contract as a whole, it's obvious it specified one license for a singular game and addon component. These contracts are written up by legal teams not gamers so you need to give some leeway as to the wording. I am not saying all complaints listed are reasonable but the way it works is put all your issues up front and then see which ones stick. In all honesty I don't see this going to trial and both teams would be better off just reaching a settlement.
Spoken like a true lawyer. Settle :cool:
 

0neTwo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
347
I work as a Litigation Specialist so I actually have to look at this stuff all day as part of the trial team. The wording may be confusing to you but it's not to me. You should look at the entire contract as a whole, it's obvious it specified one license for a singular game and addon component. These contracts are written up by legal teams not gamers so you need to give some leeway as to the wording. I am not saying all complaints listed are reasonable but the way it works is put all your issues up front and then see which ones stick during bench. In all honesty I don't see this going to trial and both teams would be better off just reaching a settlement.

But its not obvious its for one game when it clearly states "the game space citizen and the related game SQ42". There is no way to interpret it any differently than exactly what it says, its right there as clear as you could possibly make it. You dont give "leeway" to the wording in a contract written and reviewed by multiple experts in the field of doing just that.... And the actual lawyers have read and reviewed the contract and response(s) and dissected them piece by piece in detail for us all to see.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,688
But its not obvious its for one game when it clearly states "the game space citizen and the related game SQ42". There is no way to interpret it any differently than exactly what it says, its right there as clear as you could possibly make it. You dont give "leeway" to the wording in a contract written and reviewed by multiple experts in the field of doing just that.... And the actual lawyers have read and reviewed the contract and response(s) and dissected them piece by piece in detail for us all to see.

The words "related" and "together" can still be construed as being sold/marketed as one game. At this point it's all about who can argue it better.
 
Top