******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
The ups and downs of a PTU tester....
First time in after installing the newest patch, all is well and then....
about 40 patches of this (Including Evocati) it just makes you want to cry now.... forehead on Desk, sigh
Very High - 1440P - GTX 1070
First time in after installing the newest patch, all is well and then....
about 40 patches of this (Including Evocati) it just makes you want to cry now.... forehead on Desk, sigh
After that ^^^^ it was back to <20 FPS.
Very High - 1440P - GTX 1070
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al
oh dear silly sausages lol on the surface looks like crytek have a decent case imho. be interesting to see how this plays out
oh dear silly sausages lol on the surface looks like crytek have a decent case imho. be interesting to see how this plays out
That'll make for some interesting reading later, i remember the CryDev Slack/Discord channel was full of Crytek devs cursing GIC once it was apparent they moved to AWS, there were working directly with CIG on the Engine and then.... the bomb dropped.
Its was obvious they did at least feel betrayed.
The last two patch have been a bit disappointing, yet the patch they had over the weekend produced good FPS for me. On the plus side Yela seems to be working for me know.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,111
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
how many planets and moons can you land in 3.0?
It looks like a legal dispute that's been ongoing for well over a year that hasn't been settled amicably and is now going to court to me. Yes, I think that CryTek would be annoyed if they did a whole bunch of work at reduced cost for someone on the agreement that they both use and market their engine, who then turns around and goes elsewhere thus leading to a loss of earnings.
CryTek are using one of the biggest and successful (not to mention expensive) litigators in the US for this case. These are the people who won a high-profile $500m settlement from Oculus/Facebook recently. They're very unlikely to agree to take this case if they felt it at all frivolous, as it's likely to be high-profile in gaming media and thus could be damaging if they were to lose.
I've noticed a lot of sentiment around that this is CryTek being petty, or looking for a cash grab. If it's the case and CIG haven't done anything wrong, nothing is lost -- in fact, it would look good for CIG to come out of it unscathed. If, though, it's settled out of court or the court finds against CIG, the backers *really* need to start asking serious questions about the competence of CIG's management. If CIG lose it's on them, not CryTek.
Actually not.
The case filled in courts is here, read it is in "plain English".
https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG
CIG is in deep pile of poo. Not only they broke the contract in multiple places, but they gave to third parties the exclusive source code and tools Crytek had given them.
While in addition making the series of videos Bugsmashers, which is exposing proprietary code and tools.
That's pure copyright infringement, and bigger companies than CIG were completely destroyed out on copyright infringement, let alone two counts of it.
As @NZXT30 put it, get your money out now.
And because some might not bother, look at the item 2 on the demands
So, they should delete everything related to CryEngine. That's it. The game is over.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Posts
- 29
It is entirely speculation and based on very little information that everyone outside of CIG and Crytek actually has. We have no idea what the contract says and considering that the 2 lawyers that know the contract best, including the person who supposedly wrote it, now work for CIG, my presumption is that CIG have a good case.
Did you read the court documents posted above?
Panos I do agree that on the face of it that it looks bad. I do think that from the initial document it also looks like they have previously broken things but this is from one side that will paint the picture they want. We would need to see the contract to know any of what is said and how it relates.
I mean going back date to 2014. CIG stated they had brought the engine requirements outright. That then falls in line with when they removed the splash screen because if they had brought that they would not need to show it. So that is point one.
If they did really buy it outright then they also would be in their right to show things in bugsmashers. Showing images of recent bugsmasher since switching to Amazon Lumberyard then even Lumberyard still holds GB of data that relate purely to CryTek and name CryTek still because they have not gone through it all either.
So it depends on what was understood back in 2014 when/if CIG did really buy the code accordingly and thus felt the contract was nullified as they now had complete control of their systems. It is a concern but I don't think it is as close cut as they are stating. Bearing in mind CIG have hired the person who wrote the contract between CIG & CryTek.
In terms of the 2 games, I think they would be hard pushed to say SQ42 is built on CryEngine as well as SC in that technically both games were built with the assets of one game and then split later. They could argue that when they split the game they had started moving over to Lumberyard and thus their second game is not even in question and thus you dismissed.
There certainly are some claims that look to be happening otherwise. What I want to know is where CryTek have found the monies to hire such lawyers, to create this case but still can't pay their stuff even in 2017 :/ so yeah I think both could also be in the wrong either way. Did the contract require certain CryTek requirements to be complete in a certain time and because they were in financial crisis and people left they could not support CIG so at that point CIG already believed that ties had been cut due to this and they moved on. We just don't know.
As said it does look bad, it does paint a black and white picture but that would be the case for a legal document. They need to push hard and be strong in their view as any grey area would be destroyed during a court and similar. It also strikes as odd to put them in front of a jury and not in front of a judge because public opinion and understanding is always going to be worse as they will likely not understand 90% of the legal. SimonReach is also correct that speculation is what we mainly have right now with really only CryTek & CIG having any knowledge and details.
I mean going back date to 2014. CIG stated they had brought the engine requirements outright. That then falls in line with when they removed the splash screen because if they had brought that they would not need to show it. So that is point one.
If they did really buy it outright then they also would be in their right to show things in bugsmashers. Showing images of recent bugsmasher since switching to Amazon Lumberyard then even Lumberyard still holds GB of data that relate purely to CryTek and name CryTek still because they have not gone through it all either.
So it depends on what was understood back in 2014 when/if CIG did really buy the code accordingly and thus felt the contract was nullified as they now had complete control of their systems. It is a concern but I don't think it is as close cut as they are stating. Bearing in mind CIG have hired the person who wrote the contract between CIG & CryTek.
In terms of the 2 games, I think they would be hard pushed to say SQ42 is built on CryEngine as well as SC in that technically both games were built with the assets of one game and then split later. They could argue that when they split the game they had started moving over to Lumberyard and thus their second game is not even in question and thus you dismissed.
There certainly are some claims that look to be happening otherwise. What I want to know is where CryTek have found the monies to hire such lawyers, to create this case but still can't pay their stuff even in 2017 :/ so yeah I think both could also be in the wrong either way. Did the contract require certain CryTek requirements to be complete in a certain time and because they were in financial crisis and people left they could not support CIG so at that point CIG already believed that ties had been cut due to this and they moved on. We just don't know.
As said it does look bad, it does paint a black and white picture but that would be the case for a legal document. They need to push hard and be strong in their view as any grey area would be destroyed during a court and similar. It also strikes as odd to put them in front of a jury and not in front of a judge because public opinion and understanding is always going to be worse as they will likely not understand 90% of the legal. SimonReach is also correct that speculation is what we mainly have right now with really only CryTek & CIG having any knowledge and details.