4 ms·

This will now make a lot of gamedevs stop and pause when considering Crytek goods, so Crytek must be really desperate to resort to this sort of PR-hostile measu

This will now make a lot of gamedevs stop and pause when considering Crytek goods, so Crytek must be really desperate to resort to this sort of PR-hostile measures.

mtgx 9y ago
> so Crytek must be really desperate I think the last I heard of them they were almost into bankruptcy-mode, so yeah it does seem like they did this out of desperation. Still short-sighted, though.
- joshschreuder 9y ago
  They're doing what I can only assume is a cashgrab crypto IPO too. http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/crycash-announces-its-token-sale-and-partners-with-crytek-immediately-bringing-cryptocurrency-to-20171210-00033 http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/crycash-announces-its-to...
larkeith 9y ago
On the other hand, if Star Citizen is really using an unlicensed instance of CryEngine for Squadron 42, that's a significant breach of contract, and effectively piracy. It seems absurd to avoid Crytek for responding with legal measures.
- glenneroo 9y ago
  AFAIK they moved to the customized version of CryEngine (Amazon's Lumberyard) beginning of this year due to engine limits. They even hired some ex-CryEngine-devs to get things going but in the end they (supposedly) had no other choice but to switch. So theoretically they haven't been using CryEngine at all since an entire year.
  - larkeith 9y ago
    Amusingly, that's also part of the lawsuit - Crytek claim Star Citizen were contractually obligated to use CryEngine exclusively. It's somewhat irrelevant, as, if they used CryEngine at all for Squadron 42, even if only for development (especially if promotional footage/beta testing/etc was on CryEngine), that remains unacceptable.
rootlocus 9y ago
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.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  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.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    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.
    - girvo 9y ago
      Except we’re talking about private for-profit companies. Sort of changes the calculus a little, I think. I don’t have sympathy for either company here.
      - rootlocus 9y ago
        The law doesn't consider your sympathy in either case, and that's the point.
        Nadya 9y ago
        And the court of public opinion often doesn't consider the law and that's their point. Even if completely justified under the law it can be bad PR. For example, McDonalds could have refused to give St. Jude winnings for one of their Monopoly games because pieces were given to St. Jude in such a way that broke the rules. Or asked for the money back once it was found to be part of a fraud scheme. Is McDonald's going to back out of paying the winnings and eat the bad PR of "Refuses to give money to hospital known for saving dying children." just because they have the legal right to do so? Hell no. [0] http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lt.12.html http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lt.12.html
IncRnd 9y ago
They are likely to be somewhat desperate. Consider this, though, if the only protection of one's income came from a license - it makes sense to enforce that license against people who didn't pay substantially over $75,000, after contacting them several times.

This will now make a lot of gamedevs stop and pause when considering Crytek goods, so Crytek must be really desperate to resort to this sort of PR-hostile measures.

mtgx 9y ago

> so Crytek must be really desperate I think the last I heard of them they were almost into bankruptcy-mode, so yeah it does seem like they did this out of desperation. Still short-sighted, though.

joshschreuder 9y ago
They're doing what I can only assume is a cashgrab crypto IPO too. http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/crycash-announces-its-token-sale-and-partners-with-crytek-immediately-bringing-cryptocurrency-to-20171210-00033 http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/crycash-announces-its-to...

larkeith 9y ago

On the other hand, if Star Citizen is really using an unlicensed instance of CryEngine for Squadron 42, that's a significant breach of contract, and effectively piracy. It seems absurd to avoid Crytek for responding with legal measures.

glenneroo 9y ago
AFAIK they moved to the customized version of CryEngine (Amazon's Lumberyard) beginning of this year due to engine limits. They even hired some ex-CryEngine-devs to get things going but in the end they (supposedly) had no other choice but to switch. So theoretically they haven't been using CryEngine at all since an entire year.
- larkeith 9y ago
  Amusingly, that's also part of the lawsuit - Crytek claim Star Citizen were contractually obligated to use CryEngine exclusively. It's somewhat irrelevant, as, if they used CryEngine at all for Squadron 42, even if only for development (especially if promotional footage/beta testing/etc was on CryEngine), that remains unacceptable.

rootlocus 9y ago

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.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
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.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  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.
  - girvo 9y ago
    Except we’re talking about private for-profit companies. Sort of changes the calculus a little, I think. I don’t have sympathy for either company here.
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      The law doesn't consider your sympathy in either case, and that's the point.
      - Nadya 9y ago
        And the court of public opinion often doesn't consider the law and that's their point. Even if completely justified under the law it can be bad PR. For example, McDonalds could have refused to give St. Jude winnings for one of their Monopoly games because pieces were given to St. Jude in such a way that broke the rules. Or asked for the money back once it was found to be part of a fraud scheme. Is McDonald's going to back out of paying the winnings and eat the bad PR of "Refuses to give money to hospital known for saving dying children." just because they have the legal right to do so? Hell no. [0] http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lt.12.html http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/10/lt.12.html

IncRnd 9y ago

They are likely to be somewhat desperate. Consider this, though, if the only protection of one's income came from a license - it makes sense to enforce that license against people who didn't pay substantially over $75,000, after contacting them several times.