-
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.
Crytek sues Star Citizen developer Cloud Imperium, alleging copyright infringement
- Thread starter Spongebob
- Start date
Well Crytek isn't suing Amazon, but either way, Amazon didn't donate money to Crytek. They bought a product Crytek was offering, nothing was done out of the goodness of their heart.
The only shitty thing going on here, if the complaints are valid, is what CIG has done.
We also don't know if they have been attempting to settle this and it has gone nowhere. With the guy who negotiated the contract working for one side and then the other, I am pretty damn sure this isn't the first time CIG has heard about this lawsuit coming.
Cryengine is still under active development. They are just moving in different direction.
Take a look at all the commits here https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/commits/main
Well Crytek is not defunct and are still working on some interesting products. Also need to point out that Crytek has already run out of the cash from Amazon last year. They are currently kept afloat by another large cash injection from selling Warface publishing right.
Last edited:
I agree cause if crytek wins they can put more money behind The Hunt.
These big lawsuits don't just get started on a whim. There must have been extensive communication on this matter between CIG and Crytek before it came to this. Not a good look on CIG in particular if these allegations are true.
Crytek is still Crytek, warts and all, but they seem to have a valid case there.
Crytek is still Crytek, warts and all, but they seem to have a valid case there.
This seems like a situation where it is too early to make judgement on. I am so uneducated on legal matters so I really can't see who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Both companies have people who feel very strongly about them for good or for bad, I'd like to see how this plays out. That being said I loved Crytek of old, and I think Star Citizen looks amazing. I just would like to see more of the story from both sides. As far as I'm understanding it from the little I know this lawsuit could go either way and I'm not sure which way I'd rather see it go.
Yes, Lumberyard is based from the Cry Engine 3 but with evolutions towards massive online play. (well, maybe not massive but, at least, more online friendly)
While the regular Cry Engine managed by CryTek is now in it's version 5 (and free).
Star Citizen started to work on the Cry Engine 3 and had difficulties to adapt the large modifications they did to the engine with the Cry Engine 4 updates (5 being out of the question). While on the other hand, the Switch to Lumberyard was much easier because the changes made by Amazon were on stuff left mostly untouched by CIG and provided welcomed improvements on the netcode side.
Maybe CIG should have handle things differently with Crytek, but in the game interest, switching to Lumberyard was the right move i think.
Regardless of outcome, i doubt that this would help Crytek to gain more developers on CryEngine board, it's not like their engine is popular anyway, but suing one of the most well-known game that used your engine after switching to different engine (yes, technically it's still CryEngine, but still) is not a good look for your future partners.
They honestly just need to get out of the engine business. Just make it your own engine, don't license it. They don't have the staff to be able to make games AND provide licensees with proper support, which was even a concern back when Crytek and CryEngine were more financially stable. Given that state of Unreal Engine 4, Unity continued improvements and Lumberyard pretty much being "free", it makes it pretty silly for anyone to consider CryEngine at this time.
The agreement with Amazon allowed them to fork from CryEngine 3 which turned into Lumberyard for around $75m in cash.
Why dont you just explain it to me since I have no idea how to decrypt your words?
CIG seemingly have massively messed up. Given what we know it should be an easy case for Crytek.
Seems a last-ditch attempt by an unsuccessful developer that hasn't made anything good in years to grab some money from one that is actually making something potentially good.
Definitely low. If I didn't dislike to see anyone lose their jobs, I'd hope for CIG to finally put the sinking torpedo into Crytek. They've been a trainwreck for way too long.
Definitely low. If I didn't dislike to see anyone lose their jobs, I'd hope for CIG to finally put the sinking torpedo into Crytek. They've been a trainwreck for way too long.
Maybe after Crytek win, they'll be able to resurrect Free Radical Design / CrytekUK and do a propre TimeSplitters 4 or even a HD Collection.
Like a monkey... Like a monkey... Like a monkey...
Or maybe it's time to Split ! for Crytek and let CrytekUK breath instead of working on terrible games like Homefront.
Like a monkey... Like a monkey... Like a monkey...
Or maybe it's time to Split ! for Crytek and let CrytekUK breath instead of working on terrible games like Homefront.
I dont think Crytek has a case, with what all CIG explained about engine transitions and deals, but maybe.
One thing i know that Crytek did not actively cooperated or showcased Star Citizen as CryEngine licensee game since 2014.
On every GDC they have Licensee Showcase trailer, where they show the biggest game on their platform (Epic and Unity do the same stuff with their engine too btw).
Star Citizen appears only in 2013 and 2014 trailers, not in following in ones. In comparison Kingdom Come Deliverance is in all of them.
2013 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkrCT1_y57o
2014 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B02i1AaQms
2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6543HUY_TwM
2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcnrt1pX5XA
2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3o4QfsuuXA
One thing i know that Crytek did not actively cooperated or showcased Star Citizen as CryEngine licensee game since 2014.
On every GDC they have Licensee Showcase trailer, where they show the biggest game on their platform (Epic and Unity do the same stuff with their engine too btw).
Star Citizen appears only in 2013 and 2014 trailers, not in following in ones. In comparison Kingdom Come Deliverance is in all of them.
2013 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkrCT1_y57o
2014 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B02i1AaQms
2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6543HUY_TwM
2016 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcnrt1pX5XA
2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3o4QfsuuXA
Note that, while Star Citizen isn't officially fully released yet, the game *is* already on sale and has been earning quite a lot of money. I mean, the Kickstarter doesn't count since that isn't technically selling anything, but right now you can go to the website, buy the game, and start playing it. You can also buy items within the game. Chris Roberts even out and out said that 3.0 is Early Access. So now is definitely the time to sue the company for not complying with its contract with the engine provider that states that they must pay a fee upon the game's release.
Of course, Squadron 42 is another matter....
Chris Roberts said:
Of course, Squadron 42 is another matter....
Last edited:
Pledges for the game is put towards developing game. It is something they have repeated for years now and shows up repeatedly on sales page. None of this is "for profit" yet. Just because a pledge promises a ship, game, credit or any other items doesn't mean that it is a finalized product for sale.
As far as whether or not S42 is a different game, well it was explained when they made the split almost two years ago
Official RSI Announcement (2016)
So among the many questions raised, whether or not the game is on sale for profit or a pledge for development isn't one of them. Also the question of S42 being considered a separate game, it is not. S42 is considered a module as apart of the game.
Last edited:
Serious question: does anyone know Crytek's approximate worth? I'm wondering whether it would be better for CIG to use a couple dozen of those millions they've been given and just buy Crytek for the expertise. Still, I suppose just paying a few million for an out-of-court settlement would be quicker, cheaper and easier.
It entirely depends on the term or rights detailed in the contract though. You'd think CIG would have a lawyer or two on staff to go through this stuff, given how much the project has ballooned.
Amazon fully bought a version of Cryengine then redeveloped it to tie it into their servers & systems. I'm sure it's changed not an inconsiderable amount since then, but yes Lumberyard started out as a version of Cryengine.
Nah, Crytek clearly don't like money otherwise a Crysis collection early on this gen would have been an absolute no-brainer. At this point I'd rather they just sold both Crysis and TimeSplitters to someone else if they're not going to use either.
It entirely depends on the term or rights detailed in the contract though. You'd think CIG would have a lawyer or two on staff to go through this stuff, given how much the project has ballooned.
Amazon fully bought a version of Cryengine then redeveloped it to tie it into their servers & systems. I'm sure it's changed not an inconsiderable amount since then, but yes Lumberyard started out as a version of Cryengine.
Nah, Crytek clearly don't like money otherwise a Crysis collection early on this gen would have been an absolute no-brainer. At this point I'd rather they just sold both Crysis and TimeSplitters to someone else if they're not going to use either.
I don't have exact numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if Crytek is worth more than CiG can afford. I imagine Amazon would be in a much better position to buy Crytek.
The way they set up the arguments is kind of clever. If CIG claims that they're actually showing Lumberyard and not CryEngine in public, then they're admitting they broke the agreement requiring them to use CryEngine. If CIG claims they are using Cryengine, then they're also saying they broke the agreements to display Cryengine logos in the game and to only develop one game on Cryengine.
I guess they could try to claim that Squadron 42 doesn't actually exist but that would look pretty stupid.
There are also the years of blogs and youtube videos they made about improvements they've been making to Cryengine (64 bit conversions, networking improvements, etc) that were apparently supposed to go back to Crytek according to their agreement
e: Also, according to the lawsuit, Crytek was trying to get fixes from CIG as far back as Nov. 2015 and warned them about developing a separate Squadron 42 in Feb. 2016, so it's not like the lawsuit came out of nowhere
I guess they could try to claim that Squadron 42 doesn't actually exist but that would look pretty stupid.
There are also the years of blogs and youtube videos they made about improvements they've been making to Cryengine (64 bit conversions, networking improvements, etc) that were apparently supposed to go back to Crytek according to their agreement
e: Also, according to the lawsuit, Crytek was trying to get fixes from CIG as far back as Nov. 2015 and warned them about developing a separate Squadron 42 in Feb. 2016, so it's not like the lawsuit came out of nowhere
I mean, CIG can also argue that they switched engines and that they were justified to do so. That's where the language of the contract is key.
How they use their income means nothing, the fact is they are selling the game and items within it, and earning money. Chris Roberts said it himself in what I quoted, it's exactly like a fully released online game. These are not "pledges", the Kickstarter ended long ago, now they are purchases. If you go to their website, you are going to what they call a "store" where you buy "game packages" with set prices.
They are still considered pledges and have nothing to do with kickstarter. Kickstarter doesn't hold a monopoly on the term pledge. It is illustrated in EVERY sale (4+ years since kickstarter ended) since RSI site launched and it is still the current wording if you specifically got to the Squadron 42 drop down menu. How they categorize and use the funds does matter in a legal sense and it is going to interesting to see how this plays out in court. It matters because of the legality of "what" you are spending money for and the different expectations that come from pledging to an unfinished product versus buying a finished product. Just to reiterate, everything that is available for purchase on the website is a pledge with the exception of subscription services.
Example as shown inTOS:
Last edited:
Again, the fact that they call it a "pledge" means exactly diddly; at this point it's a PR stunt (so they can say they are the most pledged project ever!), and an excuse for the state of the game's development. The fact is they have a store where you purchase items you can then use, they are earning an income, and then using that money to fund development. Just like every other developer. Do you think PUBG isn't using all their income for development? Does that mean PUBG isn't selling their game, and is a crowd-sourced title?
Read Chris Roberts' words:
Read Chris Roberts' words:
Chris Roberts said:
Paired with the fact TimeSplitters 3 sold 300,000 copies and you have an IP that most publishers aren't willing to spend that much money on anyway. Graeme Norgate cites the fact TS3 flopped as a huge factor in pretty much everything from Crytek killing TimeSplitters 4 to publishers choosing not to buy the IP.
You are mistaken, they are very clearly considering it a separate game. It's a stand-alone game that doesn't require ownership of Star Citizen, so it is a separate game. Just like Pokemon Red and Blue are separate games, though they take place in the same worlds and even connect to each other.
Last edited:
Other developers when they release a finalized game do in fact receive profits. I am not privy to PUBG so I cannot speak on that. Refering tothe purchase options as a pledge is not for PR (especially since they really dont advertise) but in fact specific wording that they use so you can understand what you are paying for and it is reinforced in TOS. Just because you feel like that is not an important distinction doesn't means that it isn't in the eyes of the law or consumers. You can pay money for a service, a license, a product, land or many other tangible objects but in many countries it matters GREATLY what you have purchased as they may have different laws governing what you have invested in. You continue to use that quote to misconstrue what is he stating.
He isn't talking about the product or whether or not it is finished but how he runs the company like clearly stated in that very same quote.
Again in reference to the options to pledge it is not a finished product that is for sale.
You do realize you are not arguing against me but CiG in general. I just quoted their own words and had a link to the page. Are you trying to be contrary on purpose? Here is a question for you. Games that use the same engine, same launcher but has separate button on start screen to start module means it is a separate product?
So you are of the brilliant opinion is that if they offered different packages that gave access to only Star marine or Arena commander? They would be considered separate games instead of modules? You get that conclusion by comparing the scenario above to a game that is physically shipped on two different pieces of media? Why do I get the feeling you are aren't being genuine now?
Last edited:
You do realize you are not arguing against me but CiG in general. I just quoted their own words and had a link to the page. Are you trying to be contrary on purpose? Here is a question for you. Games that use the same engine, same launcher but has separate button on start screen to start module means it is a separate product?
So you are of the brilliant opinion is that if they offered different packages that gave access to only Star marine or Arena commander? They would be considered separate games instead of modules? You get that conclusion by comparing the scenario above to a game that is physically shipped on two different pieces of media? Why do I get the feeling you are aren't being genuine now?
If they're being sold separately, I don't see why they wouldn't be considered separate products. An expansion can launch from the same launcher as a game, that doesn't necessarily make it part of the game under a licensing agreement
That is like stating the 0KB keys to unlock content are an example of sepereate work on the part of dev. Not many people find that to be true.
The creation of the product and the distribution of the product can be two different affairs. The distribution of a product is actually what alot of IP laws address. You write a single book but decide to sell the last three chapters, the acknowledgements and the index separately, doesn't mean to any rational person that you created 4 separate products, it just means that you chose to sell a single product cut up into 4 parts.
I find it interesting when so many gamers lament the current games with memes like..
that some seem to be at odds understanding the difference between a seperate project created alongside versus a portion of a project gated off for a fee.
Funny, except you use steam to launch a particular games launcher. If you own modern Ubi games, you use steam to launch uplay whcih in turn launches a particular games launcher. It is like... launch-ception.
Last edited:
I only own one game because I launch them all from the Steam app. lol
That is like stating the 0KB keys to unlock content are an example of sepereate work on the part of dev. Not many people find that to be true.
The creation of the product and the distribution of the product can be two different affairs. The distribution of a product is actually what alot of IP laws address. You write a single book but decide to sell the last three chapters, the acknowledgements and the index separately, doesn't mean to any rational person that you created 4 separate products, it just means that you chose to sell a single product cut up into 4 parts.
I find it interesting when so many gamers lament the current games with memes like..
that some seem to be at odds understanding the difference between a seperate project created alongside versus a portion of a project gated off for a fee.
Funny, except you use steam to launch a particular games launcher. If you own modern Ubi games, you use steam to launch uplay whcih in turn launches a particular games launcher. It is like... launch-ception.
I'll admit that they've been ambiguous about it, but even in the announcement you quoted from 2016 they say "The package split does not change the fact that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are part of the same game universe, or the fact that the games are functionally connected" and "While we know not everyone enjoys both single and multiplayer games, we would certainly encourage you to try both for the complete Star Citizen experience!" The implication there is definitely that they're considered separate games.
If Crytek can produce an agreement that backs their claims, your opinion of the company means nothing, as they'll be in the right.
Think back to when people disliked Zenimax and thus piled onto the thought that they were filing a frivolous claim against Oculus. How did that turn out?
Think back to when people disliked Zenimax and thus piled onto the thought that they were filing a frivolous claim against Oculus. How did that turn out?
The "opinion of the company" means quite a bit. Negative opinions aren't being very nice on EA for sure at the moment.
Zenimax didn't really need to rely much on VR fans back then. On the other hand, Star Citizen has a big following among PC gamers, and Crytek does rely a lot on their support. Trying a cash grab on what is pretty literally their money might not be a very good idea PR-wise.
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if that third point would be uphold in court. You can't force someone to use a specific engine. One side pays for the rights to use the engine and if they don't want to continue they can of course do so.
Without even mentioning that it's probable that there are several escape routes for that kind of clause even if it existed.
The most telling fact is that Crytek demanded a trial by jury. That's what you do when you know your case has little merit and would be dismissed by a competent judge, and you hope to be lucky with a popular verdict to grab some cash.
Last edited:
You read all that yet missed
The specifically referred to them as modules.
I did see that, I just thought that calling something a module isn't necessarily relevant when you refer to it as a game in the same paragraph.
Pathetic on Crytek, guess they are hoping for some cash to pay their employees? Just another desperate maneuver like their bitcoin ripoff.
CIG will probably stall this out until Crytek can't pay the lawyer fees anymore, also they want a trial by jury? Haha get the hell out of here with that Crytek, smh.
CIG will probably stall this out until Crytek can't pay the lawyer fees anymore, also they want a trial by jury? Haha get the hell out of here with that Crytek, smh.
This is close to a driveby post, but I still feel it needs to be said:
How about we actually get the games in question before the lawsuits happen?
How about we actually get the games in question before the lawsuits happen?