5 ms·

>22. On December 16, 2015, Defendants announced that "Squadron 42," a single-player video game involving space combat, would be sold separately from Star Citize

>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 CryEngine without a license and in violation of copyright laws. This seems to be the main point. They're claiming Star Citizen is using CryEngine for their new game, and haven't licensed it out to do that, along with the company behind Star Citizen distributing assets of Cryengine in various ways. They were also supposed to help in developement of Cryengine in way of bug fixes, and did not comply. Crytek's GLA appears to be pretty far reaching. >38. On December 23, 2016, Defendants announced that they were using the Amazon Lumberyard video game engine for Star Citizen. The GLA did not permit Defendants to use any other video game engine in Star Citizen except for CryEngine. >50. On May 6, 2015, Defendants began posting a series of videos online titled "Bugsmashers." The videos contain excerpts of information from CryEngine that were confidential, in breach of the GLA, and should not have been shown to the public. The series continues today.

jchw 9y ago
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?
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > 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.
  - jchw 9y ago
    Ah, that's interesting. I was referring to the claim that they revealed confidential information about Cry Engine, but that explains the meat of this lawsuit. I didn't read through the whole thing. I'm not a big follower of Star Citizen and frankly even with all of the evidence presented I'm not sure what the outcome should rightfully be, but it sounds to me like CIG is knee deep right now.
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      Regarding the confidential information: > 50. On May 6, 2015, Defendants began posting a series of videos online titled "Bugsmashers." The videos contain excerpts of information from CryEngine that were confidential, in breach of the GLA, and should not have been shown to the public. The series continues today. > 51 On August 26, 2017, news reports announced a partnership between Defendants and a third party developer, Faceware Technologies. Upon information and belief, as a result of the partnership, Faceware received access to the underlying technology for CryEngine (including computer source code). Defendants did not disclose this third party developer's involvement to Crytek, let alone obtain Crytek's prior written approval. This was entirely in breach of the GLA.
  - bhouston 9y ago
    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.
    - bonesss 9y ago
      Working backwards: The Game [Star Citizen], that embeds the engine [CryEngine], does so to the exclusion of others. Ie: the couldn't start on CryEngine, get free demos, then actually use Unreal Engine for the rest of the game. The second interpretation is the only that makes sense, as the sentence is qualified for just Star Citizen. It's pretty clear in legal terms, and very clear in context that the exclusivity refers the there being a single, exclusive, engine.
Gupie 9y ago
> 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.
- Narretz 9y ago
  It's possible that CryEngine is now offerend under different terms compared to when it was licensed to StarCitizen.
  - bonesss 9y ago
    It's also possible that the Engine is, and was, offered under multiple terms simultaneously to hit different parts of the market. I'm speculating (yay internet!), but for Enterprise components developers profit from there's often a "buy the cow up front" option along with a "free cow today for a sip of the milk tomorrow" model. Star Citizen, particularly before the crowd funding, wouldn't have wanted to give them a lot of cash up front, and got some really nice concessions in the deal (free promos and development).
    - king_phil 9y ago
      What does it matter? Pacta sunt servanda...?
- Rooster61 9y ago
  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.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  From the complaint: In 2012, Defendants sought to develop a new game called "Star Citizen," which was billed as an epic space adventure, trading, and dogfighting video game.
JepZ 9y ago
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.

jchw 9y ago

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?

rootlocus 9y ago
> 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.
- jchw 9y ago
  Ah, that's interesting. I was referring to the claim that they revealed confidential information about Cry Engine, but that explains the meat of this lawsuit. I didn't read through the whole thing. I'm not a big follower of Star Citizen and frankly even with all of the evidence presented I'm not sure what the outcome should rightfully be, but it sounds to me like CIG is knee deep right now.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    Regarding the confidential information: > 50. On May 6, 2015, Defendants began posting a series of videos online titled "Bugsmashers." The videos contain excerpts of information from CryEngine that were confidential, in breach of the GLA, and should not have been shown to the public. The series continues today. > 51 On August 26, 2017, news reports announced a partnership between Defendants and a third party developer, Faceware Technologies. Upon information and belief, as a result of the partnership, Faceware received access to the underlying technology for CryEngine (including computer source code). Defendants did not disclose this third party developer's involvement to Crytek, let alone obtain Crytek's prior written approval. This was entirely in breach of the GLA.
- bhouston 9y ago
  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.
  - bonesss 9y ago
    Working backwards: The Game [Star Citizen], that embeds the engine [CryEngine], does so to the exclusion of others. Ie: the couldn't start on CryEngine, get free demos, then actually use Unreal Engine for the rest of the game. The second interpretation is the only that makes sense, as the sentence is qualified for just Star Citizen. It's pretty clear in legal terms, and very clear in context that the exclusivity refers the there being a single, exclusive, engine.

Gupie 9y ago

> 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.

Narretz 9y ago
It's possible that CryEngine is now offerend under different terms compared to when it was licensed to StarCitizen.
- bonesss 9y ago
  It's also possible that the Engine is, and was, offered under multiple terms simultaneously to hit different parts of the market. I'm speculating (yay internet!), but for Enterprise components developers profit from there's often a "buy the cow up front" option along with a "free cow today for a sip of the milk tomorrow" model. Star Citizen, particularly before the crowd funding, wouldn't have wanted to give them a lot of cash up front, and got some really nice concessions in the deal (free promos and development).
  - king_phil 9y ago
    What does it matter? Pacta sunt servanda...?
Rooster61 9y ago
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.
IncRnd 9y ago
From the complaint: In 2012, Defendants sought to develop a new game called "Star Citizen," which was billed as an epic space adventure, trading, and dogfighting video game.

JepZ 9y ago

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.