Actually with the injunction to delete all work related to CryEngine and stop using the engine, I doubt it.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Actually with the injunction to delete all work related to CryEngine and stop using the engine, I doubt it.
They are utilising Lumberyard and their code and engine. There is nothing on CryEngine anymore and thus work has no reason to stop. Also currently no injunction has been enforced so they are free to carry on.
CIG for 5 years was using CryEngine to create everything. Lamberyard is CryEngine 3.8 and very easy to port from one to another, and CIG announced that they are going to use it last December. (2016)
So
a) either they were lying to everyone and hadn't many any game code, started writing the game after last December.
b) they transferred their work from CryEngine to Lamberyard. In this case all 5 years of work has to be deleted full stop.
In addition, we do not know the agreement between Amazon and Crytek. Because Lamberyard is just a branch of CryEngine trunk.
However the client, assets and everything pre-existed the Lamberyard transfer. So all these parts need to be deleted.
No it doesn't. There is no reason for anything that has been ported from CryEngine to Lumberyard to delete it. The assets are not even created in CryEngine anyways. They utilise modelling programs first and bring that into Lumberyard. They also have created a lot of new code/tools that are nothing to do with CryEngine and don't have to share which things like all the planetary tech, the procedural tech is more than fine since it is Lumberyard now.
You cannot force someone to delete an asset that is used in someone else engine. If I create an asset in Sketchup and port it to CryEngine for instance I cannot be asked by Google to delete my CryEngine model because I utilised their software first and moved it.
Edit: I would also like to stipulate that Item 2.0 has only been going since Lumberyard as well and that was all code they created themselves. It still boils down to the 2014 date where CIG claimed they brought the code outright from CryTek and if they signed an exclusivity deal to create SC on only CryEngine.
CryTek make no mention of this or dates previous to this and only between that and the lumberyard move in which case it is unknown. With that in mind it looks like CIG was supporting their agreement until they brought the 3.8 code from CryTek since CryTek was branching to 4.0 + in which case there should be no contractual rights to CIG as they cannot give CryTek code fixes or tools that are no longer on the same branch.
This would also explain why things changed during that period as Lumberyard was also looking at purchasing the same branch as what CIG were on.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 3,089
- Location
- Edinburgh
Oh yes they can, of course they can.
Why would it suddenly not be a product of sketchup just because you moved it? The Sketchup software allowed you to do something which you couldn't have done without it.
So that's a bad example.
Law firms don't win every case, even the top onesWell I guess there's nothing to worry about and the biggest copyright law firm on the planet is on a wild goose chase.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 10
Out of court settlement likely?
Will CIG just throw some cash at Crytek to shut them up?
The irony of Crytek calling anyone out on contractual obligations and financial mismanagement.
Derek Smart needs to choke on his own Twitter feed, man is a tool.
Will CIG just throw some cash at Crytek to shut them up?
The irony of Crytek calling anyone out on contractual obligations and financial mismanagement.
Derek Smart needs to choke on his own Twitter feed, man is a tool.
Last edited:
Law firms don't win every case, even the top ones
True but who would you put money on? A law firm that has just won a 500m lawsuit vs Facebook or Chris Roberts, his wife and his brother.
Regardless of how it plays out, the simple fact that it has come to this reeks of incompetence, recklessness and wishful thinking, all of which were major problems in Roberts' previous projects.
No they can't they could ask me to change the base model asset itself but not delete the whole thing. So with that if they rework all the ships within lumberyard for instance then they are fine because they are then created in lumberyard on the parts that cryengine done previous. Do they have to start again, no is the point.
They can easily push forward with what they have created since each ship has been remodelled outside of CryEngine and then imported to lumberyard. All the Item 2.0 and it's code has been done with Lumberyard, all the AI, lighting, animation and similar is either by them or the Lumberyard engine.
And anything that is now base code is Lumberyard. They have removed all CryEngine code. Just because the code is 99% the name and the place it comes from now means it is fine.
It also isn't 5 years. It was 3 years starting 2012 going through to 2015. With that there really isn't much of what was used in CryEngine anyways since they moved everything. The base move of what they done 2 years ago might have taken 2 days but the re-write of code, modules and similar have been going on for years in Lumberyard. CryTek proving when/what code is used can not be shown beyond what was shown in Bugsmashers and a lot of that is CIG code anyways. For instance the above modules I mentioned above. Any base code in there could be an issue for anything if they did not purchase the licence like they started.
Law firms don't win every case, even the top ones
I read that quote when this specific law firm was used by Zenimax against Facebook over Oculus Rift copyrights, in a more complicated and muddled lawsuit.....
I play with both, there is still a lot of what AWS call "Legacy" code, tools and features in Lumberyard, what AWS call "Legacy" is Cryengine, put simply Lumberyard still cannot function without all that Cryengine code and tool sets.
Let me show you something, this is the latest Lumberyard Build.
See all those Cry' files? they go on and on and on..... there are thousands of them, those are CryTek IP built up in Cryengine by Crytek developers over more than a decade.
It takes a very very very long time to build an engine as sophisticated and extensive as Cryengine, While AWS are working to make it thier own the fact is the bulk of it is still Cryengine.
I don't know what that means for the lawsuit but... it is what it is.
Let me show you something, this is the latest Lumberyard Build.
See all those Cry' files? they go on and on and on..... there are thousands of them, those are CryTek IP built up in Cryengine by Crytek developers over more than a decade.
It takes a very very very long time to build an engine as sophisticated and extensive as Cryengine, While AWS are working to make it thier own the fact is the bulk of it is still Cryengine.
I don't know what that means for the lawsuit but... it is what it is.
It is indeed a very easy way out from the mess he created. Last time it was Microsoft that didn't allow him to complete his "masterpiece" this time it could be Crytek.
Actually while this is not something that anyone would notice but when you look at Bugshashers and ATV... whenever you see a screen with a development ongoing look in the top left corner, almost always what you see there is the file set for the tool being used and invariably it begins with Cry######
Crytek are not angels, reading the way they have been doing business over the last couple of years is truly shocking. Maybe hubris has struck the winning law firm, they are also going against the lawyer who drafted the initial agreements? I'm sure he knows the in's and out's of the them. It's also interesting if Amazon will lift a finger in all this, SC seems to be a big marketing thing for them, could they just buy Crytek and then there's no problem?
Without reading CIG's side of the story this may look very damning to the outsider. If you have any experience of legal cases you'll know the other side paint you as more evil and wrong than an evil wrong thing. If Crytek were messing about around one of the times they were not paying their employees, who knows what they were up to
It looks a mess, but that doesn't mean it is.The first thing that came to my mind is how a cash strapped crytech can afford said big time litigators
I'll be honest I don't know all the ins and outs or how the system works in the US but it smells to me of a last ditch to crab money.
If CIG has broken contract then crytek deserve to be well compensated and rightly so, thing is, if it turns out to be BS the damage to the game/CIG cannot be undone no matter the outcome.
this has been public knowledge for years, who do you think made them? CIG was literally 5 or 6 people post kickstarter and website funding campaigns. They had CR, his wife Sandi, Ben Lesnick and a couple of others.
CryTek have about $500m to burn....
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/55627/crytek-receive-500m-investment-turkish-gov/index.html
With that i think what CryTek want is their logo all over the game, as 'allegedly' what was originally agreed.