******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 14
- Location
- In the closet
feels like people have been waiting for this pie in the sky for like a decade now.
I was skeptical from the beginning. Now I am pretty sure it is never going to release.
I was skeptical from the beginning. Now I am pretty sure it is never going to release.
lol thanks for your insight. For those wondering and haven't seen it yet. This is worth a watch. Was posted a page back but think it has the most relevant insight to what the developers see and what they want to work on for 12 months.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcHAfaQh3QE
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 3,089
- Location
- Edinburgh
So, 3.0 and all, thought I'd have a go again.
For the life of me I couldn't remember the controls.... I jumped to a planet, 7-800km out and started travelling towards it.... Dear god it took a while, I must be missing like, the gear shift or something haha.
How are you meant to do the final bit? Full thrust.... Got me nowhere fast
For the life of me I couldn't remember the controls.... I jumped to a planet, 7-800km out and started travelling towards it.... Dear god it took a while, I must be missing like, the gear shift or something haha.
How are you meant to do the final bit? Full thrust.... Got me nowhere fast
Yeah hold afterburner (shift) to go into cruise mode and fly down to the planet quickly.
That being said, has anyone tried flying down on the darkside of a planet? Literally couldn't see a thing and ended up smashing (or rather bouncing) off the ground.
That being said, has anyone tried flying down on the darkside of a planet? Literally couldn't see a thing and ended up smashing (or rather bouncing) off the ground.
Hit 5 for head lights.
Not much consistency to the moderation around here
If no one reports it then I'm afraid it doesn't necessarily get spotted in a timely manner (as I don't think many of the Mods have an interest in this game) - I just popped in to check there had been no further trouble
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,114
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Worth jumping back on?
^^ Watched that a couple of hours ago, amazing how in all that bluster, the long list of failings & breaches claimed, its all utter rubbish and there in black & white within the license agreement.
I certainly wouldnt have had the motivation to read the documents and fully appreciate them, but the way he takes you through the document, adding small comments along the way, and skipping the legal precedents and similar jargon, to give a straight forward message, its very easy to follow and understand.
For those not interested in going through it for 1h, basically the response from CIG is as follows:
'License agreement only covered Star Citizen, not Squadron 42'
From the GLA (Game License Agreement), which Crytek opted not to include as part of their lawsuit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ej9fqb9BBf8mbd-rhPIiNRK3Rbs5M31o/view under p.2 (page 7, following court documentation)
'Exclusively use CryEngine'
Also from the GLA document above, page 3+.
The 'Exclusive' factor is defined under the 'Grant of License' section, outlining the terms CIG are granted for the use of the CryEngine. In the section for the restrictions imposed on its use, there is no such statement of exclusive right. Basically the clause is saying CIG are the only ones legally approved to use this license, not that they're legally obligated to use it.
'Conflict of interest with Ortwin as an ex-Crytek lawyer, when working for CIG and involved in the GLA contract'
Crytek signed a waiver, as required, stating they had no issue. Its an incredibly serious allegation too, and it seems they were notified by CIGs lawyers, and refused to remove the claim in both the following amendments sent to the court.
'Failure to include CryEngine copyright notices (logos)'
CIG included copyright notices whilst using the CryEngine, and removed them when they werent. Crytek essentially point this out in their initial claim.
'Failing to supply bug reports' and 'disclosing CryEngine source code'
CIG dont seem to have specifically denied these claims, however its most likely because...
'Seeking damages'
This is the big one, how much Crytek would receive because CIG failed to meet contractual obligations (assuming these points are true).
GLA page 11 (p17 of document)
From what i can understand, CIGs payment obligations for the buy-out of the license, ended with a final payment before July 2016. Then there are other optional payments for additional Crytek support (€100k/yr) and if CIG release modding tools (€150k).
As mentioned by the copywrite lawyer in the video, this waiving of damages is quite bizarre, but... there it is, in black & white, with everyones signature.
So returning to the failure to report bugs and disclosing CryEngine source code (during Bugsmashers episodes) could be true and CIG are in breech of contract, but the contract says Crytek arent entitled to damages.
Its all very bizarre, what exactly was Cryteks motive, are they being instructed by morons, and lawyers happy to bill some hours for a frivolous lawsuit? It seems incredibly unlikely that they have an ace up their sleeve that wasnt used, because judging the initial complaint it has zero merit and will be dismissed, which almost certainly puts an end to any further attempts to re-argue it later on.
CIGs initial statement was that it was garbage, they'll fight the charges and seek damages of their own. They've made some pretty serious false allegations, misled the court, and dragged CIGs name through the mud. Its also pointed out by CIG that Crytek have brought RSI into the proceedings, despite the fact that RSI didnt exist when the contract was agreed, and have no relevance at all to it.
Crytek have 15 days to respond, and presumably it'll go back & forth this way if need be, until a judge determines the claim has merit and should proceed or is baseless and will be dismissed.
Note: I've manually typed the quotes from the court submitted papers, as they're essentially images not documents, so mis-spellings are my doing. The bulletpoints for the complaints are in my words. There may be other aspects ive missed, but the net sum of all of this is that it seems Crytek wouldnt be entitled to seek damages for the breachs they're claiming either way.
I certainly wouldnt have had the motivation to read the documents and fully appreciate them, but the way he takes you through the document, adding small comments along the way, and skipping the legal precedents and similar jargon, to give a straight forward message, its very easy to follow and understand.
For those not interested in going through it for 1h, basically the response from CIG is as follows:
'License agreement only covered Star Citizen, not Squadron 42'
From the GLA (Game License Agreement), which Crytek opted not to include as part of their lawsuit
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ej9fqb9BBf8mbd-rhPIiNRK3Rbs5M31o/view under p.2 (page 7, following court documentation)
I dont think this needs explaining. 'Space Citizen' may well have been its WIP title back in 2012, however as a note, the contract also clearly defines the roles of the 2 elements as a single player campaign and a persistent universe.
'Exclusively use CryEngine'
Also from the GLA document above, page 3+.
The 'Exclusive' factor is defined under the 'Grant of License' section, outlining the terms CIG are granted for the use of the CryEngine. In the section for the restrictions imposed on its use, there is no such statement of exclusive right. Basically the clause is saying CIG are the only ones legally approved to use this license, not that they're legally obligated to use it.
'Conflict of interest with Ortwin as an ex-Crytek lawyer, when working for CIG and involved in the GLA contract'
Crytek signed a waiver, as required, stating they had no issue. Its an incredibly serious allegation too, and it seems they were notified by CIGs lawyers, and refused to remove the claim in both the following amendments sent to the court.
'Failure to include CryEngine copyright notices (logos)'
CIG included copyright notices whilst using the CryEngine, and removed them when they werent. Crytek essentially point this out in their initial claim.
'Failing to supply bug reports' and 'disclosing CryEngine source code'
CIG dont seem to have specifically denied these claims, however its most likely because...
'Seeking damages'
This is the big one, how much Crytek would receive because CIG failed to meet contractual obligations (assuming these points are true).
GLA page 11 (p17 of document)
Essential, this says Crytek has no right to seek damages under any realistic circumstance, and the only payment they would be entitled to, is the full amount outlined for the purchase of the contract, which is also outlined with costs from page 8 (p13/14 of doc) if anyones interested.
From what i can understand, CIGs payment obligations for the buy-out of the license, ended with a final payment before July 2016. Then there are other optional payments for additional Crytek support (€100k/yr) and if CIG release modding tools (€150k).
As mentioned by the copywrite lawyer in the video, this waiving of damages is quite bizarre, but... there it is, in black & white, with everyones signature.
So returning to the failure to report bugs and disclosing CryEngine source code (during Bugsmashers episodes) could be true and CIG are in breech of contract, but the contract says Crytek arent entitled to damages.
Its all very bizarre, what exactly was Cryteks motive, are they being instructed by morons, and lawyers happy to bill some hours for a frivolous lawsuit? It seems incredibly unlikely that they have an ace up their sleeve that wasnt used, because judging the initial complaint it has zero merit and will be dismissed, which almost certainly puts an end to any further attempts to re-argue it later on.
CIGs initial statement was that it was garbage, they'll fight the charges and seek damages of their own. They've made some pretty serious false allegations, misled the court, and dragged CIGs name through the mud. Its also pointed out by CIG that Crytek have brought RSI into the proceedings, despite the fact that RSI didnt exist when the contract was agreed, and have no relevance at all to it.
Crytek have 15 days to respond, and presumably it'll go back & forth this way if need be, until a judge determines the claim has merit and should proceed or is baseless and will be dismissed.
Note: I've manually typed the quotes from the court submitted papers, as they're essentially images not documents, so mis-spellings are my doing. The bulletpoints for the complaints are in my words. There may be other aspects ive missed, but the net sum of all of this is that it seems Crytek wouldnt be entitled to seek damages for the breachs they're claiming either way.
While the 'Game' consists of the 2 elements, in Exhinit 2 it says 'For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately'. That to me sounds like they shouldn't be selling the parts separately and doing so could be a breach of contract.
It's too much of a hassle to go through the rest but I think it's important to note that Crytek's claims in the initial filing were crystal clear and on point while CIG's reply had a lot of melodramatic fluff probably written because they knew many of the backers/potential customers would be reading it.
Maybe this was Crytek's bluff and now that they're being called on it, they'll back off. If it isn't a bluff, it won't be as easy as some of the backers think it will be, the biggest/baddest law firm on the planet does not take cases without rigurous due diligence.
This bit did seem to confuse him somewhat as to why you would put basically a "zero damages" in there, kinda defeats the object of the contract I would have thought.
Still going on what's in the gla seems to point crytek bluffing in the hopes of a quick settlement from CIG to avoid the PR, May have backfired somewhat.
My initial theory was that this was something that Crytek wanted adding, to ensure that if they fell to the financial issues they've been having, this said that CIG had no recourse for legal action against them, AND that they'd still be entitled to the full license payment.
However i believe i got it the 'Crytek's maximum aggregate liability' part completely backwards. I'd summarised that Crytek wouldnt be liable and would still receive the full payment, reading too much into the 'WILL BE LIMITED TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY OR ON BEHALF OF LICENSEE TO CRYTEK UNDER THIS AGREEMENT' part and completely missing the 'Liability' part at the beginning.
This is saying the most Crytek would be liable for is the total amount CIG had paid as the licensee.
So my current theory is that this could have been a middle-ground for both parties, so that in the event of Crytek folding and failing to meet their obligations, CIG couldnt seek damages as a result, however any payments could be reversed. That certainly fits given the continued uncertainty of their finances, so its plausible, but it doesnt seem to explain why you'd preface it saying NEITHER party could liable, it appears to protect CIG somewhat, but offers Crytek absolutely nothing in the event that CIG fails to meet its obligations.
Like you say, the fact that he was rather confused about it, and asked if anyone else could explain it, suggests its not common practice, and between the 2 parties one of them felt it necessary to add it, i just wonder whether the uncertainty of Cryteks finances around that time was the motivating factor.
Other questions i have which dont seem to be resolved in CIGs response, are the suggestions that CIG received favourable rates or were contractually obligated to send the list of bugs to Crytek, for them to have failed and them to seek damages. This might be in there somewhere, but i dont see it. I can understand CIG not feeling the need to defend something indefensible when they can point to the 'no damages' and brush it off, i just dont see the
While the 'Game' consists of the 2 elements, in Exhinit 2 it says 'For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately'. That to me sounds like they shouldn't be selling the parts separately and doing so could be a breach of contract.
It's too much of a hassle to go through the rest but I think it's important to note that Crytek's claims in the initial filing were crystal clear and on point while CIG's reply had a lot of melodramatic fluff probably written because they knew many of the backers/potential customers would be reading it.
Maybe this was Crytek's bluff and now that they're being called on it, they'll back off. If it isn't a bluff, it won't be as easy as some of the backers think it will be, the biggest/baddest law firm on the planet does not take cases without rigurous due diligence.
In the context of what you've typed, sure. However thats only a quarter of the whole sentence.
- The WHOLE paragraph ends with a clear example of what ISNT acceptable, and it includes ALL aspects of the sentence being breached. Not 1, not a few, but all of them. Now, im not saying that allows CIG to make 'Star Fleet', an RTS as outlined, with the only exception being its accessible through the SC client, and its covered, but if that whole paragraph is designed to clarify that CIG cannot sell one of 'the Game' features separately, then that sentence doesnt say that at all, and the example backs it up.
There isnt a single use of an 'or' in that sentence, however it repeatedly uses 'and'. Language defines the intent of a contract, if Crytek intended it to be either case, then 'and' does not imply 'either or'.
What is most likely, that the Crytek lawyer is incompetent, or the language selected is correct? Either way, in black and white, it doesnt support what Crytek are claiming.
I'd also like to point out that their 'rigorous due diligence' saw them file a claim stating that the oppositions main lawyer & company director acted unprofessionally (pretty sure it can see your license to practice law be revoked or at least suspended) despite the fact that he'd obtained a waiver.
Somehow missed this. You managed to get to page 24 of 40 for one specific and taken out of context piece of text, but its 'too much hassle' to review anything in the 23 page before, or 15 that followed. You just randomly landed on that page.It's too much of a hassle to go through the rest but I think it's important to note that Crytek's claims in the initial filing were crystal clear and on point while CIG's reply had a lot of melodramatic fluff probably written because they knew many of the backers/potential customers would be reading it.
I think its important to note that in Cryteks 'crystal clear' and 'on point' claims, they opted not to provide evidence in the form of the actual agreement that they were claiming CIG had breached.
They made allegation after allegation, without providing supporting evidence, and you accept that and call it 'crystal clear'. Meanwhile, CIG provides the evidence for everyone to come to their own conclusion and their response is 'melodramatic fluff'.
You epitomise the internet generation. 'Facts' are what you decide they are because you like the source, and not because theres anything that supports the statement.
Last edited:
the most outrageous part of that document is them calling SC/SQ42 a "game" and not just "a seies of tech demos" 
j/k. the whole thing is frankly ridiculous. it makes Crytek look like a bunch of inept chancers; does no one even think to double-check their docs etc before jumping into court and hurling slanderous accusations at another firm? doesn't this leave them open to a fairly hefty counter claim?
j/k. the whole thing is frankly ridiculous. it makes Crytek look like a bunch of inept chancers; does no one even think to double-check their docs etc before jumping into court and hurling slanderous accusations at another firm? doesn't this leave them open to a fairly hefty counter claim?
hmm, that's actually a very interesting point, how much of the ship sales etc would that cover?