• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Spongebob

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
247
http://massivelyop.com/2017/12/13/c...oud-imperium-alleging-copyright-infringement/

The story hasn't hit major sites yet, but the suit filing is online.
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG

Crytek is suing Cloud Imperium Games and Roberts Space Industries, the companies behind the sprawling and controversial crowdfunded MMO Star Citizen
"Crytek has not been compensated for Defendants' unlicensed use of Crytek technology in the Squadron 42 game, and has been substantially harmed by being deprived of that compensation, which would ordinarily include a substantial up-front payment as well as a substantial royalty on game sales," plaintiffs argue.

Edit: Some analysis from Yuuichi

So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.


There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.
 
Last edited:

LewieP

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,099
More like suing them because litigation is preferable to bankruptcy.

I thought Star Citizen had switched to Amazon's rebranded version of CryEngine?
 

Ragona

Member
Oct 26, 2017
423
If you sign up a contract with an engine developer that includes royalties, can you just leave that contract by switching the engine?
 

DieH@rd

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,569
Crytek gonna Crytek

For those wondering, since I just had to look that up: Squadron 42 is the singleplayer component of Star Citizen, unless I'm mistaken.
Yes, with a very large cast of Hollywood actors [Gary Oldman, Mark Hamill, Mark Strong, Gillian Anderson, Liam Cunningham and many others... all of them have been scanned and have peformed]
hamil.gif
 

Skunk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,066
I wonder if Amazon will help defend Cloud Imperium Games, or countersue or something.

If the lawsuit went through somehow, it would probably scare most devs off Lumberyard.

Or at least scare them off switching to Lumberyard when they had an existing licensing agreement for Crytek; which I think is the case here.
 

Yuuichi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28
東京砂漠
So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.


There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.
 

Araujo

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,196
Although it is interesting to see if Cyrtek has a legitimate claim on this issue (considering all the story around Crytek recently) im just here counting down until the brigade of "LoL This time SCAMcitizen will go down burning!!!111!" arrives...

As a backer myself, even though im not actively playing the recent builds, the huge output of updates and information they give on the development of this game is actually pretty impressive. I don't agree with some of the stuff they decide to do, and clearly the scope of this game is nothing short of colossal... and stuff like putting months and a TON of cash to have in-game animations realistic represent your character's aim and real line of sight instead of using all the common shortcuts game developers do for their FPS modes, is impressive... cumbersome... but impressive.

Im really looking forward to get a proper look on how Squadron 42 will play out and have a couple of basic ships and a mid tier hangar waiting for the MMO stuff, the little i played was pretty good and that was nearly 2 years ago! And it has expanded a lot since them...

though, sadly, i doubt it will be the last time we will get news like these... so far, just a claim, of which false ones we have seem plenty. But i really hope there is no truth to this one. It would be a huge bummer after everything CIG has done over the years to make such an obvious mistake.
 

Zeeman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
790
So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.


There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.

Yeah, that's basically it. The language of the contract will be key here, but these seem to be pretty straightforward claims.
 

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
This is a shocking turn of events since in some ways Crytek was kept afloat by Star Citizen.


This lawsuit could really hurt them and the chances of this game launching.
 
OP
OP
Spongebob

Spongebob

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
247
So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.


There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.
Thanks, I'll put this in the OP.
 
Nov 28, 2017
735
Sweden
So they sold Amazon the rights to their engine, and are now suing an Amazon licensee for using the engine.

Bold strategy Cotton.
Err, no. They're not suing them for using Lumberyard, they're suing them for developing in CryEngine without honoring the agreement. The fact that they've since moved to Lumberyard is irrelevant unless they scrapped all the stuff they developed in CryEngine (i.e. the entire game until that point) when they did the move.
 

Vapidity

Member
Oct 25, 2017
93
Internet
The scribd is worth reading, most of the "Nature of Action" and "Facts Giving Rise To This Action" sections are easily understandable by laypeople.

If the allegations are true Star Citizen really fucked up.
 

Rosur

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,502
So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.


There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.

Well that seems pretty clear then. Guess there person in charge of the engine choice didn't bother to get out of the contract first then and just moved to Lumberyard.
 

Zeeman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
790
Also Skadden Arps is a very legit and powerful law firm, I can't imagine they would have taken this case if they didn't think Crytek's claims were credible
 

Forsaken82

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,927
Maybe the settlement (as I assume this will likely be settled out of court) will finally allow Crytek to self fund a Timesplitters title.
 

Delusibeta

Prophet of Truth
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,648
Between this and their blatantly bullshit cryptocoin offering, I get the impression that Crytek's really desperate for cash.
 
OP
OP
Spongebob

Spongebob

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
247
Crytek invested significant time and expense in creating impressive demonstrations and proofs-of-concept that were used to persuade the public to contribute financially to a "crowdfunding" campaign to support development of the video game.

Crytek claims to have made much of the content in the initial pitch.
 

SilkySm00th

Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,803
Seems like the kind of thing you might overlook and not think about when your project bloats past the original scope with too many cooks in the kitchen and all that.

Wouldn't be surprised if SC was just like "We built a new ship called the CRYTEKJUNKER it's 5000 bucks and shoots infinity lasers for free!" and enough whales will buy 17 of them to just make this go away.
 

Skunk

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,066
So I read through the lawsuit, and the gist of it is twofold.

The GLA between said only one game, CIG published a second game (Squadron 42) which is standalone and did they did not have a licensing agreement for.

I mean, they haven't though. They were also very upfront from the outset that Star Citizen consisted of a SP and MP component, and what they were named. There's probably a legal case to be made whether the selling of a separate SKU that only includes access to the SP component of the SC client constitutes a separate game, especially in this day and age of DLC standalones and GaaS; which is what I imagine the defense would be.

The GLA also said you can only use our engine and Crytek licensed at a discounted rate to have their logos everywhere, which the move to lumberyard violated.

There's a bunch of other things in there too that this doesn't cover (including a confidentiality agreement breach), but it looks pretty open and shut in favor of Crytek if the agreement is as they say it is.

I would agree they are probably hosed here, if the contract specifically forbids using another engine and is legally binding; but I suspect that's up for debate too.

I wouldn't call it open and shut, but it's certainly a strong enough case to tie CI up in a lawsuit.

EDIT:
Spongebob said:
Crytek claims to have made much of the content in the initial pitch.

Ohhhh shit.
 

Zeeman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
790
c. awarding actual damages and disgorgement of Defendants' profits in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, attorneys' fees,and costs of suit as provided by law and as set forth in the contracts at issue;
This is the claim that will make it extremely difficult to settle this case easily. Unless I'm misunderstanding, disgorgement of profits based on CIG's unlicensed use of Cryengine for Squadron 42 could end up in the tens of millions
 

Htown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
So basically Crytek is saying:

1. The license was for one game, and CIG is now selling two.
2. CIG removed CryEngine logos and copyright notices from the game.
3. CIG agreed to only use CryEngine for the game and have moved to Lumberyard.
4. CIG hasn't collaborated on CryEngine development (bug fixes, optimizations, etc.)
5. CIG shared details of the engine and code with third parties and the public without permission.

All of which were supposedly in breach of the contract and infringed Cryek's copyrights.

None of this seems like a stretch, so I don't know what CIG is going to say.
 

Yuuichi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28
東京砂漠
I mean, they haven't though. They were also very upfront from the outset that Star Citizen consisted of a SP and MP component, and what they were named. There's probably a legal case to be made whether the selling of a separate SKU that only includes access to the SP component of the SC client constitutes a separate game, especially in this day and age of DLC standalones and GaaS; which is what I imagine the defense would be.

I totally see where you're coming from on this, but what the suit seemed to imply is that CIG is treating Squadron 42 as separate and Crytek therefore isn't getting royalties. I would need to go look over the language again to confirm it though.
 

Deleted member 6137

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,386
Warning: Driveby post and inflammatory language
Lol, they have some of the most skilled scam artists in the industry.
 

Htown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
I totally see where you're coming from on this, but what the suit seemed to imply is that CIG is treating Squadron 42 as separate and Crytek therefore isn't getting royalties. I would need to go look over the language again to confirm it though.
I mean, if you go on their website they call it Squadron 42 "standalone" and you can just buy it for like 45 bucks. Seems like a separate product to me.
 

Geist

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,579
Here's a question, does the original contract apply if they later bought the engine outright for their own purposes so as to not have to rely on service from Crytek, who at the time was having bankruptcy issues? That's what CIG did in 2014 and considering they owned it, I don't see how using it to create another game (SQ42 wasn't separated from Star Citizen until later) is a problem.

To me, this feels like fishing for an out-of-court settlement because they're running low on cash.
 

Venom

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,635
Manchester, UK
Err, no. They're not suing them for using Lumberyard, they're suing them for developing in CryEngine without honoring the agreement. The fact that they've since moved to Lumberyard is irrelevant unless they scrapped all the stuff they developed in CryEngine (i.e. the entire game until that point) when they did the move.
Its highly unlikely scrapped years of assets, animations, models, procedural generation tech etc etc when they moved over? I don't think so. There wouldn't even be a game left if that was the case and they'd be getting sued by the backers right now.

If Crytek aren't exaggerating their claim I can see this being a pretty big blow to Star Citizen. Pretty fucked up by both parties.
 
Oct 27, 2017
42,700
Its highly unlikely scrapped years of assets, animations, models, procedural generation tech etc etc when they moved over? I don't think so. There wouldn't even be a game left if that was the case and they'd be getting sued by the backers right now.

If Crytek aren't exaggerating their claim I can see this being a pretty big blow to Star Citizen. Pretty fucked up by both parties.

What did Crytek do?
 

Deleted member 10193

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,127
Here's a question, does the original contract apply if they later bought the engine outright for their own purposes so as to not have to rely on service from Crytek, who at the time was having bankruptcy issues? That's what CIG did in 2014 and considering they owned it, I don't see how using it to create another game (SQ42 wasn't separated from Star Citizen until later) is a problem.

To me, this feels like fishing for an out-of-court settlement because they're running low on cash.
36.
Section 2.1.2 of the GLA contained a critical promise from Defendants that they would not develop the Star Citizen video game using any other video game engines.
37.
Section 2.1.2 of the GLA states that Defendants have a license only to "exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game."
38.
On December 23, 2016, Defendants announced that they were using the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen. The GLA did not permit Defendants to use any other video game engine in Star Citizen except for CryEngine.

They signed a contract then switched engines. Looks like an open and shut case to me.
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962
Some pretty interesting stuff in that doc.

Defendants knew Crytek's right to display its trademarks and copyright notices in the Star Citizen video game and related marketing materials was a critical component of the GLA. Yet, by at least September 24, 2016, Defendants' co-founder Chris Roberts publicly sought to minimize Crytek's contribution to Star Citizen, stating that "we don't call [the video game engine] CryEngine anymore, we call it Star Engine" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDROliuDczo).
That was a couple months before they announced the switch to Lumberyard.

On August 26, 2017, news reports announced a partnership between Defendants and a third party developer, Faceware Technologies. Upon information and belief, as a result of the partnership, Faceware received access to the underlying technology for CryEngine (including computer source code). Defendants did not disclose this third party developer's involvement to Crytek, let alone obtain Crytek's prior written approval. This was entirely in breach of the GLA.
I wonder how that works with having transitioned to Lumberyard but having things initially built in Cryengine. The source code for Lumberyard went up publicly on GitHub that very month and with it based off Cryengine you have to figure some of that source would be included in that. I suppose it comes down to when that partnership with Faceware Technologies started.
 
Last edited:

Geist

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,579
36.
Section 2.1.2 of the GLA contained a critical promise from Defendants that they would not develop the Star Citizen video game using any other video game engines.
37.
Section 2.1.2 of the GLA states that Defendants have a license only to "exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game."
38.
On December 23, 2016, Defendants announced that they were using the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen. The GLA did not permit Defendants to use any other video game engine in Star Citizen except for CryEngine.

They signed a contract then switched engines. Looks like an open and shut case to me.
What I mean is does the complete buyout of the engine in 2014 change the terms of their contract? Why would they pay millions up front to have to deal with those kind of restrictions?
 

Starviper

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,431
Minneapolis
Oh come on, i've been waiting for this game for so long and it's made so much progress. Couldn't they wait until the game is essentially finished and making money before suing?