3 ms·

This suit seems a bit weak in places. For example they are sueing that they only licensed cryengine for one game, and yet RSI was planning on using it for two

This suit seems a bit weak in places. For example they are sueing that they only licensed cryengine for one game, and yet RSI was planning on using it for two games. However the second game has never shipped, and RSI has switched both games over to the Amazon Lumberyard engine. This particular claim seems like it’s going to get thrown out. My guess is that we’ll see a settlement in this. It doesn’t seem like this going to hurt RSI very much.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
There's a reasonable point that from the time they started developing Squadron 42 to the time that they switched to Lumberyard, they were illegally using the engine. Additionally, it's been suggested that the "engine switch" was in name only/an attempt at evading the license fee. If in discovery, they can prove CryEngine is still in use, as opposed to actually being properly rebased on Lumberyard... There's a lot here, and Crytek has a lot of different claims. They only need one or two of the claims to stick for it to hurt.
- danielvf 9y ago
  If they weren’t using Lumberyard, that would be more exciting, but CryTech claims RSI is, and some of their other claims are based on RSI having switched. They can’t have it both ways.
  - dsl 9y ago
    Sure they can. They moved the bulk of the engine over to Lumberyard and publicly announced that, but under the hood are probably using the more mature CryEngine where Lumberyard is lacking. EDIT: It gets more confusing, Lumberyard is apparently a hard fork of CryEngine that Amazon paid for. My guess is they switched to Lumberyard for better licensing terms, but kept all the enhancements made to CryEngine post-fork.
    - didibus 9y ago
      Amazon also made enhancements to Lumberyard since though. Not sure why you'd call one more mature then the other. Do you have experience with both and can attest that Lumberyard now lacks behind the latest CryEngine?
      - drawnwren 9y ago
        This gets particularly weird when you consider the legal obligation to provide upstream patches to bugs. Are they now on the hook to patch Crytek with Lumberyard fixes?
      - dsl 9y ago
        I think that exactly the root of the problem here. They wanted to benefit from the enhancements on both sides of the fork, already signed an exclusive agreement with Cry, but want the fee structure from Amazon. I only mentioned CryEngine being more mature because they have more dedicated resources working on it, and from what I understand dev studios contribute fixes back to the engine as well.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

There's a reasonable point that from the time they started developing Squadron 42 to the time that they switched to Lumberyard, they were illegally using the engine. Additionally, it's been suggested that the "engine switch" was in name only/an attempt at evading the license fee. If in discovery, they can prove CryEngine is still in use, as opposed to actually being properly rebased on Lumberyard... There's a lot here, and Crytek has a lot of different claims. They only need one or two of the claims to stick for it to hurt.

danielvf 9y ago
If they weren’t using Lumberyard, that would be more exciting, but CryTech claims RSI is, and some of their other claims are based on RSI having switched. They can’t have it both ways.
- dsl 9y ago
  Sure they can. They moved the bulk of the engine over to Lumberyard and publicly announced that, but under the hood are probably using the more mature CryEngine where Lumberyard is lacking. EDIT: It gets more confusing, Lumberyard is apparently a hard fork of CryEngine that Amazon paid for. My guess is they switched to Lumberyard for better licensing terms, but kept all the enhancements made to CryEngine post-fork.
  - didibus 9y ago
    Amazon also made enhancements to Lumberyard since though. Not sure why you'd call one more mature then the other. Do you have experience with both and can attest that Lumberyard now lacks behind the latest CryEngine?
    - drawnwren 9y ago
      This gets particularly weird when you consider the legal obligation to provide upstream patches to bugs. Are they now on the hook to patch Crytek with Lumberyard fixes?
    - dsl 9y ago
      I think that exactly the root of the problem here. They wanted to benefit from the enhancements on both sides of the fork, already signed an exclusive agreement with Cry, but want the fee structure from Amazon. I only mentioned CryEngine being more mature because they have more dedicated resources working on it, and from what I understand dev studios contribute fixes back to the engine as well.