Reason is AWS infrastructure, more powerful partner and the CE branch thats compatible with SC code. Switching to Lumberyard made a lot of sense actually.
Falling through ships has nothing to do with Lumberyard or CryEngine.
-
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
Falling through ships has nothing to do with Lumberyard or CryEngine.
I assume they switched because Amazon was willing to support their online efforts with their AWS cloud computing and networking. Amazon probably took on the cost of hosting their servers in return for CIG being an exclusive Lumberyard partner. Once again, this is just an assumption.
Edit: Welp, KKRT beat me to it lol.
I think the general idea is that it being able to be bought and played as a standalone experience qualifies it as being a separate game, even if it's meant to be an additive experience to the larger package that is Star Citizen.
This whole thing makes me curious if stand-alone expansions/DLC are considered separate games in the eyes of the law. I think the fact that Star Citizen and SQ42 will both just be options on the main menu make that distinction somewhat murky.
Its sold as a standalone
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Squadron-42-Standalone-Pledge
53 dollars for that and if you want to play star citizen, you have to pledge a minimum of another 53 which gets you a very basic ship and access to the star citizen world.
Both Single player and Multiplayer are clearly sold separately on their store
Last edited:
Uhhh no you don't. You pay $60 for both S42 and Star Citizen.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Aurora-MR-Star-Citizen-Squadron-42-Combo
The difference is likely in that you can play SQ24 on it's own. In this case something like Far Cry:Blood Dragon is a different game since it can be bought on its own while BoI:Afterbirth is not sin you need the base game first
OP
OP
That's not really the same though is it? You don't start Far Cry 3 to access Blood Dragon, it's a completely different game. SQ42 and Star Citizen though are just 2 different modes accessed through the same main menu, like Star Marine and Arena Commander (I assume anyway, they haven't put the option for SQ42 there yet).).
Maybe a better comparison would be the current shovel knight release. You can buy the whole thing or just the episodes with the playable characters that you like so legally each episode could be considered its own game just with a shared launch interface
Ya, that's a good comparison. That's also what I want to know, has there ever been a precedent made on whether stand-alone game modules with a shared interface are considered separate games in the eyes of the law?
If not, it may be up to the jury to decide.
Frankly if CIG is stuck trying to argue that two items that can be bought separately and work on their own (and when you buy them together it's called a "combo") is actually one game, they have already lost the central parts of the case.
I don't believe that there is any precedent for this so in that account we will have to wait for what ever the courts decide. Another important point is that SQ42 began as just another part of the whole SC game and was made a stand alone late in development after the contract was already signed
There's enough untrodden ground here that yeah, it's definitely going to need to be settled in court. Lots of very interesting questions to be asked.
The reason you want a jury over a judge is to maximise the claim amount. Juries tend go absolutely mental when it comes to allocating damages. Judges less so.
and if there actually was a clause in there that prohibits them not using any other engine than cryengine, them simply replying to the case in the way they did "CIG hasn't used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon's Lumberyard." was not a very smart move.
I agree, the question of whether they were legally able to switch to another engine is the crux of this entire case. If that can be proven, CIG is going to be paying money. If that can't be proven, the rest falls apart.
If they do indeed get held liable and the game is delayed or canceled would they then get sued by the backers? What about the stretch goals that were achieved by backer donors? if they use these funds to pay legal bills would that then be infringing on the promise to backers? Them being promised the stretch goals but not being able to deliver due to the legal fees sucking up those dollars?
Backers are getting nothing if/when this all goes tits up, as long as there's reasonable proof they attempted to make the game in good faith.
Last edited:
CGM put out an article on the lawsuit. It's mostly trodden ground since there still hasn't been anything new since the initial filing, but the last few paragraphs start talking about some of the other arguments and concerns coming out of the lawsuit.
Im not sure what the terms of the contract are but we aren't talking about a completely new engine here. I believe the main reason they moved were due to the server discounts Amazon offered?
Halting development when they may not have clear evidence that there's enough of the former engine in the current work is insane. Cease-and-desist would likely result in the death of the project.
Yeah, nothing like shitting on the work of hundreds employees who work their fucking asses off making assets and designs filled with passion and skill (Crytek or CIG) because it makes a drive-by posts filled with snark seem witty.
It's quite embarassing (your post).
I mean, Crytek isnt paying their employees and Star Citizen still isn't released after how long? They're charging absurd priced for things as well.
Just stating an opinion.
Not a drive by anymore :)
They seemingly have been paying their employees recently, after they drastically downsized. I doubt the Hunt: Showdown team are working for free.
I'm pretty sure those are the only 2 outcomes at this point.
CIG responded. Lots of interesting commentary in the reddit thread already.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize..._has_responded_to_crytek_lawsuit_docs_inside/
"You find the full thing here:"
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
"All the filed documents:"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta
From the comments, the GLA should be in exhibit C.
Edit: commentary from the same copyright lawyer as last time, Leonard French. Start at 5:58:
https://youtu.be/uNJgrqQlim8?t=05m58s
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize..._has_responded_to_crytek_lawsuit_docs_inside/
"You find the full thing here:"
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
"All the filed documents:"
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta
From the comments, the GLA should be in exhibit C.
Edit: commentary from the same copyright lawyer as last time, Leonard French. Start at 5:58:
https://youtu.be/uNJgrqQlim8?t=05m58s
Last edited:
That is strongly worded and confirms speculation about Crytek's knowledge about this being meritless.
Nifty summary by reddit user in related thread.
Liudeius said:
The most damning about this is CiG calls Crytek out TWICE for not submitting the GLA because it would destroy the argument as soon as they submitted it. Then CiG provides it themselves.
Great video, but long :P
Past about 'intentionally' was the best.
Not surprised tbh, it reeked of Crytek being desesperate for money since this hit, and their accusations didn't made any sense.
Looking at the GLA, this seems like a potentially problematic provision for CIG (although Crytek didn't cite this provision in their complaint)
2.4 During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine.
Although I assume CIG would argue that contextually licensing here means licensing out to others
2.4 During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine.
Although I assume CIG would argue that contextually licensing here means licensing out to others
Not picking on you, but it's important to keep bringing up the damages clause: no matter what CIG or Crytek did, neither side can seek damages. And as Mr. French pointed out in his video, copyright doesn't apply to contracts: if you've violated the contract, then you pay the penalties as specified by the contract. Thus there's nothing for Crytek to win here, not even attorney's fees.
The damages clause allows for damages for intentional acts or gross negligence.
And they explained in the response why this doesnt apply to this case.
---
Doesnt 'engage in the business of licensing' mean that CIG cannot license their own produced engine or middleware to anyone?
Not that they cannot license from somebody an engine or middleware.
Yes Crytek's lawyers wanted the courts to flip a century of contract law and make 'exclusive' legally mean CIG could only use X instead of giving CIG the right to use cryengine IN Star citizen. There is no such restriction under the section entitled restrictions.
(Basically a standard game engine license)
Crytek filed their response opposing the motion to dismiss: https://www.docdroid.net/v7yQ0LL/response-skadden-011918.pdf
And CIG filed their reply: https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162
And CIG filed their reply: https://www.scribd.com/document/370105345/031127439162
Another update: There was going to be a hearing today on the motion to dismiss, but the judge says she can decide it without oral argument, so she will be issuing an order at some point in the presumably near future.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
The parties have submitted a discovery plan. CIG doesn't seem to want to participate so much until the order on the Motion to Dismiss comes down. Interestingly, Crytek is saying CIG requested a formal settlement offer while CIG says they just want to know what Crytek is trying to get out of the case.
https://www.docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discovery-plan.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/uMDHWEY/discovery-plan.pdf
Bumping because a decision has been made on the Motion to Dismiss:
https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo/cr...um-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00380.pdf
Upshot:
The court dismissed Crytek's argument about the word "exclusive" and and dismissed the option of punitive damages. Everything else is still on the table, but the damage limit may make it less worthwhile for Crytek to continue to pursue the suit (although injunctive relief could still hurt CIG immensely). As well, the court seemed to imply that part of the issue of Crytek's "exclusive" argument was the provision that they used to justify it in their complaint, and that another provision (2.4) might be more fruitful.
e: Crytek can amend their claim to address section 2.4 of the contract, they have 21 days to do so. Punitive damages seem to be fully off the table though unless Crytek can come up with a new legal argument for why they would apply.
https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo/cr...um-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00380.pdf
Upshot:
The court dismissed Crytek's argument about the word "exclusive" and and dismissed the option of punitive damages. Everything else is still on the table, but the damage limit may make it less worthwhile for Crytek to continue to pursue the suit (although injunctive relief could still hurt CIG immensely). As well, the court seemed to imply that part of the issue of Crytek's "exclusive" argument was the provision that they used to justify it in their complaint, and that another provision (2.4) might be more fruitful.
e: Crytek can amend their claim to address section 2.4 of the contract, they have 21 days to do so. Punitive damages seem to be fully off the table though unless Crytek can come up with a new legal argument for why they would apply.
Last edited:
