Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#71

Post by bhouston »

rootlocus wrote: post #49
jchw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm confused about is this. I thought Star Citizen moved to Amazon Lumberyard, which I believe is a fork of CryEngine. What confidential information could they have that Lumberyard hasn't already put into the open?

> 36. Section 2.1.2 of the GLA contained a critical promise from Defendants that they would not develop the Star Citizen video game using any other video game engines.

The wording is suspect for that clause. The lawsuit says:

"Section 2.1.2 of the GLA states that Defendants have a license only to 'exclusively embed CryEngine in the Game.'"

The term "exclusive" means what in this case? They can only use CryEngine in this game (and not embed it in other games) or they are forced to only use CryEngine in this game to the exclusion of all other game engines. The second interpretation is not common in my opinion.

There are a lot of other provisions that may be more solid. This particular one seems suspect.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#73

Post by sgift »

bhouston wrote: post #67
sgift wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To boost AWS and Twitch: https://aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/

Does anyone but Star Citizen use it Amazon Lumberyard? Unity and UE4 really are the current leaders in game engine technology, CryEngine, while great, has suffered in the last four years or so and isn't a significant competitor.

If you look in the link there are six games listed. One is Star Citizen, two are (afair) by Amazon game studios, so that would leave three other games. No idea if these are just the show cases or all of them.

So, not the greatest uptake, but Amazon was always willing to give things time to mature. We'll see if they can take market share of UE4/Unity.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#74

Post by kbart »

INTPenis wrote: post #57
vita17 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This website is awfully damning considering the game was supposed to be released over a year ago: https://starcitizentracker.github.io/ As you can see, development has stalled and very little progress is being made. To answer your question: they chose a game engine to create shiny demos and carefully crafted videos. They have no intention of releasing a fully playable game. They just need to keep the hype going to ke…

I just have to mention that it is playable and I know at least one friend who is having fun playing it. I never tried it.

There are always at least few people enjoying even the most odd games[0], but that's far from the blockbuster Star Citizen was supposed to be.

0. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/desert-bus-the-very-...

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#75

Post by Narretz »

Gupie wrote: post #69
devwastaken wrote: post #4

>22. On December 16, 2015, Defendants announced that "Squadron 42," a single-player video game involving space combat, would be sold separately from Star Citizen. >25. On February 14, 2016, Defendants moved forward with their plan for Squadron 42 notwithstanding their failure to obtain a license and began offering the video game for separate purchase. As a result, Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryE…

> Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryEngine without a license and in violation of copyright laws. This is from the banner at the top of CryEngine's home page: "Full engine source code. All features. No royalties. No obligations. No license fee.

It's possible that CryEngine is now offerend under different terms compared to when it was licensed to StarCitizen.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#76

Post by erikj »

shak77 wrote: post #59
erikj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source is pretty expensive due to the mandatory Havok fee.

What are the numbers? Is Havok really mandatory? Wouldn't it be possible to replace Havok with Bullet or some other related system?

$25,000. Valve doesn't distribute Source without it, as far as I know. Replacing Havok would take a lot of effort which is better spent elsewhere.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#77

Post by JepZ »

devwastaken wrote: post #4

>22. On December 16, 2015, Defendants announced that "Squadron 42," a single-player video game involving space combat, would be sold separately from Star Citizen. >25. On February 14, 2016, Defendants moved forward with their plan for Squadron 42 notwithstanding their failure to obtain a license and began offering the video game for separate purchase. As a result, Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryE…

To set it in perspective here is the part about the violated Agreement:

> In that Agreement, Defendants promised, among other things,

> (i) to use the CryEngine game development platform exclusively and to promote that platform within the video game,

> (ii) to collaborate with Crytek on CryEngine development, and

> (iii) to take a number of steps to ensure that Crytek's intellectual property was protected.

> Defendants utterly failed to follow through on those promises, and their actions and omissions constitute breaches of contract and copyright infringement and have caused substantial harm to Crytek.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#78

Post by bdemarchi »

Star Citizen is an amazing idea. That idea was funded by millions, including me. The people managing it should have never put our money on the line by not respecting whatever agreement they signed in the past. Review the agreements if necessary, but do not disregard them and put everyone hopes in the mud. Star Citizen community is not expecting to pay millions to settle that lawsuit if that was avoidable, and yes, the community gave that money, better thread carefull here. Reading the complains it seems CIG has just completely neglected the agreement. There might be a lawfull explanation to all of that, but if their description of the event is precise, the people managing the Star Citizen idea are at fault for not doing their best to protect it and should be questioned by the community. Have a nice day.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#79

Post by Rooster61 »

Gupie wrote: post #69
devwastaken wrote: post #4

>22. On December 16, 2015, Defendants announced that "Squadron 42," a single-player video game involving space combat, would be sold separately from Star Citizen. >25. On February 14, 2016, Defendants moved forward with their plan for Squadron 42 notwithstanding their failure to obtain a license and began offering the video game for separate purchase. As a result, Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryE…

> Defendants are intentionally and willfully using CryEngine without a license and in violation of copyright laws. This is from the banner at the top of CryEngine's home page: "Full engine source code. All features. No royalties. No obligations. No license fee.

A banner on a website is hardly legally binding. All that becomes moot when a contract is signed saying what each parties' responsibilities are and the dotted lines are signed.

Re: Crytek sues Star Citizen devs for copyright infringement, breach of contract

#80

Post by rootlocus »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #70
rootlocus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that? Crytek aren't suing without reason. According to the complaint they lost money and tech from a breach of contract. It's a perfectly reasonable reason to sue.

A lot of gamers (and by extension devs) assume the worst of any legal action, so it's bad PR even if they're completely justified.

Being afraid to take legal action and defend your rights out of fear of bad PR is... not cool. This is somewhat the equivalent of being afraid to speak against an abusive partner.
Post reply on HN