Star Citizen maker says engine suit “never should have been filed”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The game industry really seems like they're trying to one-up Hollywood's accounting.
Upvote
43
(52
/
-9)
Upvote
128
(128
/
0)
This is a typical SLA disagreement between vendor and customer. This happens on a regular basis across many industries that utilize software product not grown in-house.
The only reason this particular legal wrangling over licensing is making news - involves a well known gaming company (Crytek), its graphics engine, and a long, awaited, popular game (Star Citizen).
If nothing else, this gives CIG another plausible excuse to delay Star Citizen yet again.
Upvote
82
(84
/
-2)
Let's look at the bright side: CIG now has the perfect reason for next 5 years of delaying SC's launch. Together with a perfect reason to ask for more funding. Two birds with one stone ftw!
Upvote
51
(64
/
-13)
Why would this cause SC to be delayed again? They (CIG/RSI) have committed to use Amazon Lumberyard and the old Crytek code simply cannot be brought up to lumberyard specs without a significant re-inventing of code. This is why the switched over to lumberyard in the first place. Also during that period Crytek was going bankrupt and moving from their product was probably a good idea due to lack of support from the vendor.
Upvote
7
(33
/
-26)
Game. Set. Match.
Crytek has 14 days to reply.
The only thing I did see in the GLA was something about a two year period if they do switch to a competitor.
This may explain the delay...they may not be able to release Squadron 42 until 2 years after the Dec 2016 announcement to switch to Lumberyard.
Crytek has 14 days to reply.
The only thing I did see in the GLA was something about a two year period if they do switch to a competitor.
This may explain the delay...they may not be able to release Squadron 42 until 2 years after the Dec 2016 announcement to switch to Lumberyard.
Upvote
28
(33
/
-5)
Let's see.. Star Citizen originally slated for 2014 release. Delay, delay, delay. Here it is 2018 and there still is no official release date.
If I had to guess, CIG looks for and finds any reason possible not to stick to a reasonable product release schedule.
EDIT:
Sorry SC was originally set for a 2014 release. Squadron 42 was set for 2015 release. Keep waiting Star Citizens...
Upvote
35
(54
/
-19)
If you grant me exclusive rights to use your lot for a crafts fair, that does not mean that I have to use your lot for a crafts fair, that simply means that you cannot let anyone else use it for a crafts fair.
It's absurd to think that cryengine would grant exclusive rights to use cryengine as a whole, but not as absurd to think that it might be exclusive rights to say, creating a space conquering sim with it. Regardless based on that wording there's still zero reason to think that CIG has to use cryengine. They have some exclusive right to it, but you don't need to exercise your rights.
Upvote
87
(91
/
-4)
This is sadly not a very interesting story to me, mainly because I am unable to fathom any universe in which Star Citizen will ever be released.
And I funded the damn thing, so it's not like I am "anti Chris Roberts" or anything. :-/
And I funded the damn thing, so it's not like I am "anti Chris Roberts" or anything. :-/
Upvote
54
(66
/
-12)
From what I remember reading, that December 2014 date was a 'in theory if we can hit the $2m kickstarter' ballpark date. Obviously they blew way past that figure and thus begun the feature creep which is what has pushed the game back further and further.
I'm not surprised that game isn't out yet given its scope, long dev' cycles are not exactly news, however it does seem like they may have bitten off more than they can chew...
As for this case in particular, Crytek are obviously trying to grab onto any old life raft, however sketchy. Sad really, they're responsible for some solid work in the past.
Upvote
37
(40
/
-3)
"Grant exclusive right to use" and "exclusively use" are different things.
Upvote
99
(100
/
-1)
I know, right? You'd think someone responsible for a legal document would do a good job.
Can't typos jeopardize a legal document, or not so much when the intent is plain, as it is here?
Upvote
31
(32
/
-1)
Good response from CIG; Let's hope it doesn't end up dragging out too much longer.
I backed the game at a decent enough level to get a pretty boss ship, which is now available in Alpha 3.0 (the Cutlass Black). Can't really play right now, though, as I'm getting some pretty bad performance, even with a fairly high-end rig. Before 3.0 I could get 30fps on average; now I'm getting single-digits. Not surprising, though, considering the alpha state and the amount of "holy hell" detail thus far.
I'll gladly be patient and test with each release to see if it's good to play yet. The scope of the game makes me drool, and thus far looks great. It's like Elite Dangerous + No Man's Sky + (insert FPS here). The FPS portion is particularly good; I did a little bit of Star Marine, and was pleasantly surprised at the gameplay, which is really well done.
I just hope that, when the game finally goes live, I can still load a space-bike in my Cutlass and go traipsing around the universe doing whatever I feel like without constantly getting blown up by griefers (or interdicted constantly by the AI).
I backed the game at a decent enough level to get a pretty boss ship, which is now available in Alpha 3.0 (the Cutlass Black). Can't really play right now, though, as I'm getting some pretty bad performance, even with a fairly high-end rig. Before 3.0 I could get 30fps on average; now I'm getting single-digits. Not surprising, though, considering the alpha state and the amount of "holy hell" detail thus far.
I'll gladly be patient and test with each release to see if it's good to play yet. The scope of the game makes me drool, and thus far looks great. It's like Elite Dangerous + No Man's Sky + (insert FPS here). The FPS portion is particularly good; I did a little bit of Star Marine, and was pleasantly surprised at the gameplay, which is really well done.
I just hope that, when the game finally goes live, I can still load a space-bike in my Cutlass and go traipsing around the universe doing whatever I feel like without constantly getting blown up by griefers (or interdicted constantly by the AI).
Upvote
11
(24
/
-13)
Yeah, that does seem especially sloppy.
You'd think if you were going to sue someone over a contract - where precise wording will make or break you - you'd at least bother to get the name right.
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
Leonard French's take on it. He does a good job of explaining exclusive in terms of the licensing agreement.
edit: Square and curly brackets are different things. . .
edit: Square and curly brackets are different things. . .
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
There's a difference between being granted exclusive rights to something, and signing a deal stating you will exclusively use something. Don't try to pretend they're the same thing.
Upvote
64
(64
/
0)
I think you misread CIG's position. All of section 2.1 is predicated on "Crytek grants to Licensee a world-wide, license only:". 2.1.2, which has the "exclusively" language, is about only CIG and its subcontractors doing the development work, meaning that they can't open source the development work against the engine (see the reference to 2.6) .
If the intent had really been to require CIG to use Crytek, it should have been in section 2.2 ("Restrictions on use"). It would have been easy to say "shall not license a competing engine or use Crytek via another licensee".
IANAL, but I've negotiated and signed more than a few licensing agreements, and I don't think I've ever seen one where the license rights to use something are considered to be a requirement to actually use it, let alone a prohibition on also using another solution.
And since CIG doesn't seem to be disputing their obligation to pay for the license... what's the remedy? Force them to include Crytek code and just never call it?
Upvote
60
(60
/
0)
While in some ways it is an unfair comparison, it is still interesting to look at the development cycle for Elite Dangerous vs. Star Citizen.
Elite Dangerous seems to be about delivering what you can and adding when you can, while Star Citizen is more about creating a hit straight out of the gate. Actually Eve also seems to be more like ED than SC, compare what is was to begin with to what it is today.
Perhaps their whole delivery model is flawed for something that grand.
Elite Dangerous seems to be about delivering what you can and adding when you can, while Star Citizen is more about creating a hit straight out of the gate. Actually Eve also seems to be more like ED than SC, compare what is was to begin with to what it is today.
Perhaps their whole delivery model is flawed for something that grand.
Upvote
37
(38
/
-1)
Celery Man
Ars Legatus Legionis
I can see it now... thousands of elderly people hunched over their computers anxiously awaiting the releases of Star Citizen and the final A Song of Ice and Fire books...
Upvote
47
(50
/
-3)
There is 2.4 that says they can't use any competing product. A bit shortened quote:
"During the Term of the License (...), and for a period of 2 years thereafter, Licensee, its prinicapels, and Affilialtes shall not directly or indirectly engage in business of, (...) , selling or licencing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine."
And term of the license is defined in 8.1 as full commercial life of the game.
IANAL but to me that sounds like they are only allowed to use CryEngine.
edit: as explained by others, 2.4 is a basic non-compete. Good thing IANAL.
Upvote
15
(23
/
-8)
I was one of the early early Star Citizen backers.
I think I gave up on ever seeing a complete product 3 years ago, and that was already after 3 years of promises and janky alphas.
Edit: This game's development process is super FUBAR, but its revenue model is also super FUBAR. There are people who have spent $50,000+ on ships and crap for a game that isn't even officially available as a product yet. WTF.
The planned Star Citizen economy makes the scammy free to play apps on phones with $100 hats look like child's play.
I think I gave up on ever seeing a complete product 3 years ago, and that was already after 3 years of promises and janky alphas.
Edit: This game's development process is super FUBAR, but its revenue model is also super FUBAR. There are people who have spent $50,000+ on ships and crap for a game that isn't even officially available as a product yet. WTF.
The planned Star Citizen economy makes the scammy free to play apps on phones with $100 hats look like child's play.
Upvote
17
(29
/
-12)
IANAL, but it seems to me that if you have are developing a game that has some kind of legal hassles involved (whether or not those legal hassles are going to be part of the final product), one would wait for the legal hassles to be resolved before releasing that game least one is called upon (howsoever unlikely it may be) to pull the game and fix it or to shut it down.
I don't know if that's a possibility here (it seems not), but it sounds good, and if delaying it until the litigation ends is all it takes before it can be put out WITHOUT any hassles, it's cheap insurance against greater losses later.
Sucks for SC fans, but that's how these things often go...
Upvote
2
(7
/
-5)
The specific text reads:
It is really hard to read this as creating, or being intended to create, a commitment by CIG (the licensee) to Crytek, because it's written as a grant from Crytek to Licensee (i.e. CIG) rather than a mutual agreement to do things together, or in any section describing commitments from CIG to Crytek. The text seems a lot clearer than some people seem to be assuming here.
I guess you could argue that CIG's granted license given by this document is conditional on them using it and it alone in the product, but that still would leave them able to simply not *use* the granted license.
When this first was reported on I assumed there must be something to the case, but unless Crytek intends to dispute that this is in fact the license agreement and present an alternative agreement they say supersedes it, it looks pretty clear cut that Crytek's position lacks merit to me.
I can understand Crytek being unhappy that having had their own games perform poorly, and having sold broad long-lived rights to their engine to Amazon, and having laid off a lot of their staff who are now doing work on the engine for other companies which Crytek doesn't get to use in their own future games, they are in a poor business situation, but it doesn't look to me like they have any grounds for litigation to improve their position.
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)
I had already posted some comments about this in the comment thread to the previous article
The court documents (so far) can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... F-I5XoCQta
Regarding CIG saying RSI isn't liable because it didn't exist: the GLA states that affiliates, which CIG itself states in that RSI is, are liable. There's nothing in the GLA that states the affiliate had to exist at the signing of the contract.
Regarding CIG saying the GLA allows CryEngine to be used on Squadron 42, Exhibit 2 of the GLA explicitly states that "the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen client," and also mentioned Squadron 42 as a "feature" of the game.
So the problem isn't that CIG made Squadron 42, but the fact that, instead of it simply being a campaign or mode in Star Citizen, they decided to split it out and try and sell and market it separately.
Regarding CIG's description of the use of the word "exclusively," this is one where I think both CryTek's and CIG's arguments are wrong. Reading the GLA, CryTek's use of "exclusive" is clear as limiting the game engine license to "exclusively" Star Citizen, meaning CIG couldn't use it in other games. It does not mean CIG agreed to use only their engine in the game.
However, CIG's counterclaim bizarrely tries to argue that CryTek gave them an "exclusive license" to the engine, i.e. Crytek agreed not to license it out to anyone else, which is just wrong. So CIG is in the clear here, but not for the reason they claim.
While technically the GLA says CIG must display CryEngine/Cryteck copyrights and logos with no explicit exception (Section 2.8), I agree with the CIG argument that there's an implicit agreement that those sections only apply if CIG actually uses the engine in the game.
One possible wrinkle I don't think either Crytek or CIG have brought up is CIG using any engine code modifications they wrote for CryEngine in Lumberyard. The GLA doesn't mention the degree of access to the engine source code, but Exhibit 1 indicates it's the full engine code. Based on the Amedment to the GLA, CIG had the full right to enhance and extend CryEngine, but only in regards to Star Citizen. They couldn't sublicense any enhancements they made to 3rd parties, which may be an issue if they tried to merge their changes with Lumberyard.
The court documents (so far) can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... F-I5XoCQta
Regarding CIG saying RSI isn't liable because it didn't exist: the GLA states that affiliates, which CIG itself states in that RSI is, are liable. There's nothing in the GLA that states the affiliate had to exist at the signing of the contract.
Regarding CIG saying the GLA allows CryEngine to be used on Squadron 42, Exhibit 2 of the GLA explicitly states that "the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen client," and also mentioned Squadron 42 as a "feature" of the game.
So the problem isn't that CIG made Squadron 42, but the fact that, instead of it simply being a campaign or mode in Star Citizen, they decided to split it out and try and sell and market it separately.
Regarding CIG's description of the use of the word "exclusively," this is one where I think both CryTek's and CIG's arguments are wrong. Reading the GLA, CryTek's use of "exclusive" is clear as limiting the game engine license to "exclusively" Star Citizen, meaning CIG couldn't use it in other games. It does not mean CIG agreed to use only their engine in the game.
However, CIG's counterclaim bizarrely tries to argue that CryTek gave them an "exclusive license" to the engine, i.e. Crytek agreed not to license it out to anyone else, which is just wrong. So CIG is in the clear here, but not for the reason they claim.
While technically the GLA says CIG must display CryEngine/Cryteck copyrights and logos with no explicit exception (Section 2.8), I agree with the CIG argument that there's an implicit agreement that those sections only apply if CIG actually uses the engine in the game.
One possible wrinkle I don't think either Crytek or CIG have brought up is CIG using any engine code modifications they wrote for CryEngine in Lumberyard. The GLA doesn't mention the degree of access to the engine source code, but Exhibit 1 indicates it's the full engine code. Based on the Amedment to the GLA, CIG had the full right to enhance and extend CryEngine, but only in regards to Star Citizen. They couldn't sublicense any enhancements they made to 3rd parties, which may be an issue if they tried to merge their changes with Lumberyard.
Upvote
16
(19
/
-3)
The Term (length) of the license is described in Section 8.1 as the "Commercial Life of the Game"
I do think section 2.4 is basically a non-compete clause in developing a competing engine. CIG hasn't developed a competing engine. It's not clear that using someone else's engine would violate that. Lumberyard is licensed by Amazon, not CIG.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
The overal clause is that of a non-compete. 'Licence' in this case is the act of providing third parties with a licence to a competing game engine developed by CIG. Prohibiting the use of a third-party engine by CIG does not align with the rest of the sentence.
The counterclaim is "that CIG’s right to use the Engine in the Game is exclusive to CIG and
Crytek may not give that right to anyone else."
Note the bolded part. CryTek may not give anyone else the license to use CryEngine in Star Citizen.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
I read that as a fairly standard anti-competitive type clause, i.e. you can't take the knowledge and experience gained from using our product and then make and sell/license your own competing product.
So as part of the license to use Crytek's product (CryEngine), Crytek included a clause to ensure that CIG could not start marketing their own game engine as a competing product to CryEngine. On that reading, the bit you've quote saying CIG will not engage in "selling or licencing" means that CIG can't sell or license their own game engine product to others. In this case, CIG would be the licensor, licensing their product to others.
The clause doesn't really make sense if you read it as saying CIG can't take out a license to use another game engine in place of CryEngine, as in that situation they would (again) be the licensee and would be buying a license, not selling it.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I don't understand that reasoning at all. In what way, via Crytek granting a license to the engine to CIG, would that give Crytek any rights to Star Citizen in a way that would need to be explicitly excluded?
It also seems contradicted by Section 2.6, where Crytek has to approve the usage of third-party contractors, including the signing of NDA and non-compete contracts by the subcontractor.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
I didn't realize that the $25 I backed with so many years ago would bring me this much entertainment value... and I haven't even played the game yet!
For those that can't sarcasm over the internet well I'll put that into plain English: I didn't know I'd get Star Citizen, Squadron 42 AND several years worth of internet drama all for the low price of $25. I was wondering exactly what that "Golden Ticket" was for.
For those that can't sarcasm over the internet well I'll put that into plain English: I didn't know I'd get Star Citizen, Squadron 42 AND several years worth of internet drama all for the low price of $25. I was wondering exactly what that "Golden Ticket" was for.
Upvote
20
(21
/
-1)
I think you're mistaking the meaning of the word "exclusive" here, assuming it's ambiguous. It isn't, insofar as it has a long-established legal meaning in this context. It means specifically that the rights being licensed are "exclusive," which means you do not get to transfer the rights you are purchasing to another party, should you wish to do so (for example, if another party offers to pay you for the license -- perhaps because Crytek declined to offer the license to said third party). So for example, they can't license the engine, and then turn around and sell their license to a different party. If I'm understanding things correctly, this is what CIG is claiming the agreement meant.
Now, it IS ambiguous in the sense that Crytek is claiming this is NOT what the agreement meant. But that's what the court of law is for: To settle disagreements such as this.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
My reading is entirely different from this. The "exclusivity" portions that everyone is arguing about in the 2.1 sections is about the fact that the license only applies to the specified games (IE: Star Citizen and Squadron 42). CIG is not allowed to use the license to develop any other games using this license.
The bigger concern is probably section 2.4 as others have said although again I agree with some other commenters in that this was probably supposed to be preventing CIG from building and licensing an engine to others in competition with Crytek rather than keeping CIG from working with any other engine for this or other games. Based on how it reads though, Crytek could probably make a legal case for it that I can't say how it would go one way or the other.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The whole Star Citizen thing is just kinda...sad. You've got some people who are spending hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for awesome internet spaceships who have seen very little from it, and have therefore become almost cultish in their defense of it. A grand vision from a famed developer who seemingly wants to release a perfect product on day 1. And now there's legal drama between a dying company who could never produce a game worthy of their engine and a company whose future is purely theoretical. And Amazon is in there somehow too.
I really hope(d) that Star Citizen would come in and do some amazing things. EVE but without the bullshittery. Elite: Dangerous came in and filled much of, but not all of, that need. There's definitely room for a new space sim on the market but I don't see how it can meet both the needs of people who should be compensated for putting thousands of dollars into the game, and those of us who are interested in putting $60 down on a space game. I really have no interest in playing a pay to win space sim, but I also know that those who have paid massive amounts are going to be outraged if I can grind up to their ships in two months worth of playing.
I really hope(d) that Star Citizen would come in and do some amazing things. EVE but without the bullshittery. Elite: Dangerous came in and filled much of, but not all of, that need. There's definitely room for a new space sim on the market but I don't see how it can meet both the needs of people who should be compensated for putting thousands of dollars into the game, and those of us who are interested in putting $60 down on a space game. I really have no interest in playing a pay to win space sim, but I also know that those who have paid massive amounts are going to be outraged if I can grind up to their ships in two months worth of playing.
Upvote
16
(19
/
-3)
Even though I am not vested in the game, please quit changing the core and just finish what you already have. Doing these things just throws another wrench in the gears. Thank you.
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
- Status