4 ms·

> 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 e

> 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.

> 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.