Star Citizen maker says engine suit “never should have been filed”

CIG accuses Crytek of selective and misleading reading of license agreement.

Read the whole story

 

[Nilt]

Holy crap,. I was reading the documents and noticed the original agreement had a damages waiver! I've never seen such a thing in a game engine license before and I've seen a few. Who the hell thought that was a good idea to put in?! As I read it that clause means they can't be granted damages exceeding the cost of the contract at all. Seriously, WTF?!

"Except for intentional acts, omissions, or gross negligence.." which is why Crytek added the work "intentionally" to their amended complaint against CIG/RSI

Also, the way I read that section of the GLA (6.1.4), there's a limit on the amount Crytek would have to pay, limited to the amount they got paid. There isn't a similar limit on what CIG would have to pay.

Hmm, could be. I haven't digested all the docs yet and I'd forgotten that added word from the amended complaint. This one's going to need more coffee to get through. I'm quite looking forward to the eventual response, though!

 

[MTom]

Actually, as others have mentioned, that clause is your basic non-compete clause. Basically, CIG they cannot release their own engine within that time frame.

On second read, I can see how that is the intent of 2.4, but the wording is ambiguous enough that CryTek should be able to plead their case

"During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine"

Roberts Space Industries is an Affiliate of CIG, as Affiliate is defined as "any corporate entity (including any limited liability company) hat controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, another corporate or limited liability entity, where "control" means the ownership or control of more than fifty percent of the voting rights of such entity.

RSI then licensed Lumberyard from Amazon, which is the business of directly licensing a game engine which competes with CryEngine

You are interpreting 2.4 wrong.
It basically says CIG cannot build up and sell or license their own engine to others hence the ending: "....selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine"

This to prevent someone get a license and build their own competing engine with the knowledge from the licensed Cryengine.
It's not about CIG licensing another engine.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

Also, only in the game specified, and not in any game of their choosing. This is where Crytek is trying to claim "the Game" specified in the GLA refers only to Star Citizen, when the GLA very early on defines both Squadron 42 and Star Citizen together as "the Game"

Check Exhibit 2 of the GLA, where Squadron 42 is specified as a "feature" of SC, and games sold and marketing separate from SC and/or run outside of the SC client, are forbidden. Section 1.6 of the GLA explicitly references Exhibit 2 as being where "the Game" is further defined.

Crytek brings this up in their FAC:

21. Exhibit 2 of the GLA states that "the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately," such as content "sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game."

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. In the GLA, Defendants had expressly promised Crytek that Squadron 42 would be a "[f]eature" of Star Citizen, not a video game that would be sold separately.

Check the very second paragraph of the GLA where "the Game" is defined as both the game Star Citizen (typod as Space Citizen) and the game Squadron 42 - both by name


edit:
Ok fair enough the second exhibit does have a different description - but this is in an exhibit rather than the 2nd paragraph of the main GLA so I don't know how case law works on it. (when it is already defined at the time first used in the main body of the contract, can the appendix change the definition so radically? The appendix isn't even using legal terms for the most part)

Amendments and appendices can modify the contract and/or clarify parts of the contract. The GLA explicity allows for it. For example, without Exhibit 1, the GLA doesn't describe what Crytek gives CIG access to besides the general "license." It details exactly what code and such is provided. There's also been a later amendment to the GLA that both sides agreed to.

The thing is, the appendix doesn't appear to actually change any definitions.

It only provides a clarification, and uses the language set in the "Whereas" clause, which states that that both titles will be called the "game" when referred together.

The appendix directly references this, and goes on to say that it applies to any content that meant to be accessed through the star citizen gameclient.

The next statement qualifies itself with an "and" in stating that nothing that did not utilize the gameclient would be sold separate.

This would allow them to sell and market SQ42 separately as long as it used the SC game client.

Any other issues notwithstanding, Crytech seems to have jumped the gun here, seeing how SQ42 has yet to be distributed.

I can't see how they'd prove a breach here. Not without trying to argue a different interpretation of the GLA.

 

[marsilies]

The appendix directly references this, and goes on to say that it applies to any content that meant to be accessed through the star citizen gameclient.

The next statement qualifies itself with an "and" in stating that nothing that did not utilize the gameclient would be sold separate.

This would allow them to sell and market SQ42 separately as long as it used the SC game client.
...

Hmm, it's an interesting read of that exhibit, whether that "and" means that a game has to meet both qualifications to be counted as a separate game.

From the Exhibit:

The Game as defined for purposes of this Agreement includes all content accessed by the players through the Star Citizen client software, either online on PC/Windows/Mac OS and Mobile Platforms, or on NexGen platforms.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Game does not include any content being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client, e.g. a fleet battle RTS sold and marketed as a separate, standalone PC game that does not interact with the main Star Citizen game (as opposed to an add-on / DLC to the Game).:

Features -
- Squadron 42: Single Player — Offline or Online ((Drop in / Drop out co-op play)
- Star Citizen: Persistent Universe (hosted by CIG)
- Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by player)

So is it "the game does not include include any content being sold and marketed separately, and [also does not include content] not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client," or is it "the Game does not include any content [that is both] being sold and marketed separately, and not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client"? Did Crytek mean for CIG to be able to develop, market, and sell any game, as long as it's through the Star Citizen client?

CIG/RSI does seem to think that as long as both games are launched from the same client, they're in compliance with the GLA:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm ... nformation

The package split does not change the fact that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are part of the same game universe, or the fact that the games are functionally connected. You will access Squadron 42 through the same game client...

To me, it seems like the provision was intended to allow CIG to sell add-ons and DLC, but not separated games. Crytek was likely thinking anyone with the Star Citizen client would at least own Star Citizen. Separating out Squadron 42 as a standalone purchase seems like a decision that sticks to letter of the agreement, but may be breaking the intent of the agreement.

 

[Azethoth666]

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.

As a software developer I cannot agree more. You are so much better off using some kind of rapid development scheme.

Deliver a minimum viable product. Then iterate on that. It continuously morphs into something better. You get real user feedback. Their development method is appropriate for delivering a satellite or spacecraft. You meticulously plan and execute and then bang, it is delivered and their is no backsies on anything because it is unique and launched.

This is why SpaceX is so successful. They delivered that first viable rocket. It sucked compared to F9. But the iteration that led to F9 yielded a product superior to the initial vision. FH is superior (and more difficult) for abandoning the original rocket as its components and tracking F9 instead.

Look at Blizzard. Some games die on the vine because they are not fun and Blizzard sees no way to fix that. But once the game ships that is just the first of many iterations that continuously yields more and better experiences.

 

[zladuric]

One would think CryTek was Microsoft and CIG was any government in the world.

 

[dave562]

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.

It would be nice if they got past the alpha stages and actually released the game, however knowing how impatient "gamers" seem to be now, it's a catch 22 situation where RSI will no doubt be subjected to complaints about "lack of new content" or "slow update cycles" etc.

Perhaps releasing the game in a more complete state will negate some of that inevitable criticism shortly after release. It just seems "gamers" can be highly impatient of developers, perhaps they should learn of the "all good things come to those who wait" adage.

Gamers have always been an impatient bunch.

It seems pretty tone deaf on RSI / CIG's part to not adopt a more agile development strategy.

I think that ED is a fair comparison. It is also a space sim based on decades old IP.

I think it is pretty clear that there is a huge difference in the maturity of Frontier vs RSI. Frontier is a development studio that is working on a number of games other than ED. They obviously have a mature SDLC. RSI on the other hand seems to be struggling with the basics, and does not have the institutional maturity or wherewithal to be able to commit to firm release dates.

The sense I have is that RSI "wanting to release a polished product" is a bunch of FUD. Reality is probably closer to a scenario where they are seriously struggling with the network code and can't get the game to work with more than a handful of players at a time. Rather than admit that and let players into a mess, they are keeping a tight lid on things.

I'm not necessarily faulting RSI for being unable to release a fully polished multiplayer space sim. Even massive games like EA's Battlefield series are still having first week issues with server tuning and multiplayer. Even ED gets chunky and a bit herky jerky during large community events with lots of ships in the same system.

I think that RSI could stand to be more transparent. They could also do their backers a greater service by adopting a more agile development model that focuses on delivering a (semi)-working product, and then refining it.

You started it right as they are different, but you seeing things totally the opposite way as they are.

Elite: Established company, game engine worked on for decades before the game, Elite itself worked on before the kickstarter. also it is a "you are the ship game" which is hundred time smaller work than an FPS universe.

SC: Started witha dozen people in a basement, had to build up the studios, teams, workflow first, then rewrite the bigger part of Cryengine to support their needs, then start working on the game. Also it is an FPS universe unlike Elite...which means, instead of making nice looking ship exteriors, and menus to buy and sell they need to design every ship and station interior to match the exterior, and be functional, character models, animations, every single items we interact with, buttons, doors, weapons, tools, vehicles, clothes, helmets, beds, the list goes on indefinetly...not to mention every ship and vehicle has it's own physics grid.
SC is vastly more complicated and bigger scope than Elite, and it's development started from a huge handicap compared to Elite.

The fact that RSI has not been able to develop a solid SDLC is a key indicator that they are the ones handicapping themselves. I will concede that they are two different games given the FPS aspect, but that just seems to further prove how out of their league RSI really is. They should focus on the spaceship part first, get that workable and then move onto the FPS components. Or at the very least, develop them in parallel and merge them together at some point in the future.

I will draw another parallel with E. E has planetary landings. When the game first shipped, they did not. They got the starship part working first. Then they made it possible to land on planets and gave players vehicles to drive around on the planets in.

Even if SC is a full FPS game, from a coding and development POV, the "person" character is just a character inside the "space ship" character. They should develop the ship first using the game engine. Then if the player needs to get out of the ship, change the POV to the "person".

 

[marsilies]

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.

As a software developer I cannot agree more. You are so much better off using some kind of rapid development scheme...

Normally, but I have a theory about CIG's development method.

Since the Kickstarter, they've sold in-game ships as "rewards" for real-money pledges. They originally stated that you could only directly buy ships before the game is "launched". I suspect that they're making a lot of money from selling ships, especially since they've expanded to selling tanks and land. They brought in $35 million last year alone, a total of $175 million, and I suspect a good chunk of this ongoing revenue is from fans buying more and more ships over the years of development.

However, they've committed to turning off this money spigot the moment the game is finalized. If they don't, it won't only potentially piss off a lot of the players that didn't spend any money to buy ships, it could piss off the people who bought ships as well, under the belief that they were getting an exclusive opportunity with a limited window.

So, instead of finishing a smaller but complete version of the game and then running the game studio off of the revenue from game sales to add things later on, CIG/RSI is front-loading all features before it's complete, running off the revenue from continued ship sales. I think CIG/RSI will keep at this until they either have all the features they want in the "complete" game implemented, until the money stops coming in from the ship/tank/land sales, or they piss of backers so much that a large contingent starts asking for refunds of tens of thousands of dollars.

Edited to clarify a line about the ability to buy ships being exclusively available before launch.

 

[Zacpod]

However, they've committed to turning off this money spigot the moment the game is finalized. If they don't, it won't only potentially piss off a lot of the players that didn't spend any money to buy ships, it could piss off the people who bought ships as well, under the belief that they were getting an exclusive with a limited window.

Nobody expects an exclusive ship. Everyone who buys a ship knows that those exact same ships will be obtainable in-game for in game currency.

 

[Fstchvy]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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?

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.

They announced the switch to lumberyard in 2016. No game has been released, only alpha test builds.

Perhaps a coincidence that Squadron 42 is not yet released... yet when you look at their vertical slice gameplay reveal back at the tail end of December... damn. If the rest of the game is that progressed, it means they are sitting on it. Perhaps that clause is the reason? Maybe S42 episode 1 will release 2 years and 1 day after that announcement...

 

[Agent.nihilist]

The fact that RSI has not been able to develop a solid SDLC is a key indicator that they are the ones handicapping themselves. I will concede that they are two different games given the FPS aspect, but that just seems to further prove how out of their league RSI really is.

Erm.

The FPS aspect has nothing to do with them being two different games. It's got everything to do with one being gear to a cinematic singleplayer experience, with deep and personal interactions between performance captured characters, and the other being a MMO sandbox built on the same engine.

Both have FPS and Space components.

They should focus on the spaceship part first, get that workable and then move onto the FPS components. Or at the very least, develop them in parallel and merge them together at some point in the future.

This is exactly what they did, on both counts. Ship functionality was focused on first, with the FPS mechanics being developed in parallel later on and merged in at early '17.

I will draw another parallel with E. E has planetary landings. When the game first shipped, they did not. They got the starship part working first. Then they made it possible to land on planets and gave players vehicles to drive around on the planets in.

Again, also what has been done with SC. AC was ship focused, the first PU versions didn't have planet landing or vehicles.

Even if SC is a full FPS game, from a coding and development POV, the "person" character is just a character inside the "space ship" character. They should develop the ship first using the game engine. Then if the player needs to get out of the ship, change the POV to the "person".

That's exactly what happens, only you're in the POV of the person at all times. The players animations don't drive the ship, it's controlled through direct input.

You're not really suggesting anything that CiG hasn't already been doing.

Only they can't do it the same way as ED, as the bulk of the deleys are wrapped up in the engine changes needed for everything to work properly.

CiG has had to rewrite just about everything on how the game handles data, which is still an onging process. While I'm certain they added a significant delay with the addition of procgen worlds, I doubt that even with leaving those out they'd be more than a year ahead of where they are now.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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?

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.

They announced the switch to lumberyard in 2016. No game has been released, only alpha test builds.

Perhaps a coincidence that Squadron 42 is not yet released... yet when you look at their vertical slice gameplay reveal back at the tail end of December... damn. If the rest of the game is that progressed, it means they are sitting on it. Perhaps that clause is the reason? Maybe S42 episode 1 will release 2 years and 1 day after that announcement...

Two big reasons that wouldn't be the case.

1) That clause doesn't actually prevent them from switching to another engine, only (at least for everyone else with that clause) prevents them from selling or licensing out their game engine for use in other games.

2) There are still significant technical hurdles to cross before SQ42 is release worthy. OCS is a big one, and until that's done the game will not perform well. The AI still has a long ways to go as well.

 

[freakout87]

Oh good, a Star Citizen article! I can't wait to read the comment thread full of game development experts insisting that it's never going to come out, and anybody who's backed it is a total idiot. :/

Man, with the number of stories and articles and books that have been written about game development over the last few years that give us a good look at how the sausage is made (see Jason Schreier's excellent Blood, Sweat and Pixels, or Danny O'Dwyer's great Noclip documentaries on YouTube), you'd think people would be able to accept that ambitious games take a long time to develop.

You'd think that with the number of stories about how publishers forced promising games that weren't ready out the door (see: Mass Effect Andromeda), we'd appreciate a developer independently taking their time to deliver something amazing.

You'd think that with the recent (highly impressive!) Squadron 42 vertical slice demo, showing us over an hour of actual gameplay - staged though it might have been - might finally get people to give up on the naysaying.

Nope, this is the Internet, where everyone's an expert and nobody can be positive about anything.

 

[Fstchvy]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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?

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.

They announced the switch to lumberyard in 2016. No game has been released, only alpha test builds.

Perhaps a coincidence that Squadron 42 is not yet released... yet when you look at their vertical slice gameplay reveal back at the tail end of December... damn. If the rest of the game is that progressed, it means they are sitting on it. Perhaps that clause is the reason? Maybe S42 episode 1 will release 2 years and 1 day after that announcement...

Two big reasons that wouldn't be the case.

1) That clause doesn't actually prevent them from switching to another engine, only (at least for everyone else with that clause) prevents them from selling or licensing out their game engine for use in other games.

2) There are still significant technical hurdles to cross before SQ42 is release worthy. OCS is a big one, and until that's done the game will not perform well. The AI still has a long ways to go as well.

I thought OCS is a server side issue that gimps performance to a crawl in the online universe due to it not being implemented yet... For S42, everything is done locally with no game data streaming that needs to be culled by the server to optimize performance.

My understanding is that currently, the servers basically tell you what everyone else on the server and their ships are doing, along with every piece of cargo in the game. OCS essentially culls non essential data from what is happening inside a ship on the other side of the verse.

I don’t know though... I thought this was why the single player modules or a freshly restarted server have really good FPS, while servers that have been up for a while choke your FPS pretty badly.

 

[KeillRandor]

"the game currently entitled 'Space Citizen' [sic] and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42.'"

Jesus.

Some people have been waiting for that DLC to be (re-?)released for almost 2 millennia!

(And we still think Star Citizen is bad? )

 

[Zacpod]

"the game currently entitled 'Space Citizen' [sic] and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42.'"

Jesus.

Some people have been waiting for that DLC to be (re-?)released for almost 2 millennia!

(And we still think Star Citizen is bad? )

Didn't the DLC already come out? Was region locked to the middle east at first, but now it's available globally, though it seems to be a little unstable and could use some patching. Frankly, I think both are overrated, and haven't aged well at all - but people still love them for some reason. People are weird.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

I thought OCS is a server side issue that gimps performance to a crawl in the online universe due to it not being implemented yet... For S42, everything is done locally with no game data streaming that needs to be culled by the server to optimize performance.

OCS is object container streaming, and has a lot to do with how the map will break down and get loaded. Without it, the megamap won't work properly, and they can't fully utilize the object container system.

Chris actually mentions this in the commentary for the vertical slice.(or maybe in a follow up, anywho it was within a day of the VS).

Single player doesn't really run into the entity count issue, but it can still be bogged when it needs to load a large amount of data.

My understanding is that currently, the servers basically tell you what everyone else on the server and their ships are doing, along with every piece of cargo in the game. OCS essentially culls non essential data from what is happening inside a ship on the other side of the verse.

I don’t know though... I thought this was why the single player modules or a freshly restarted server have really good FPS, while servers that have been up for a while choke your FPS pretty badly.

You're not entirely off base. It's only that OCS does more than that. While it does reduce the entity count, it's more about streaming the compartmentalized data. I think it also is involved in multiple layers of object containers.

 

[marsilies]

However, they've committed to turning off this money spigot the moment the game is finalized. If they don't, it won't only potentially piss off a lot of the players that didn't spend any money to buy ships, it could piss off the people who bought ships as well, under the belief that they were getting an exclusive [opportunity] with a limited window.

Nobody expects an exclusive ship. Everyone who buys a ship knows that those exact same ships will be obtainable in-game for in game currency.

You're right, I didn't mean to indicate that the ships are exclusive in any way. Rather, the ability to just straight up buy them with real money is an opportunity exclusively limited to before launch. I've edited my post to reflect this.

 

[Zacpod]

However, they've committed to turning off this money spigot the moment the game is finalized. If they don't, it won't only potentially piss off a lot of the players that didn't spend any money to buy ships, it could piss off the people who bought ships as well, under the belief that they were getting an exclusive [opportunity] with a limited window.

Nobody expects an exclusive ship. Everyone who buys a ship knows that those exact same ships will be obtainable in-game for in game currency.

You're right, I didn't mean to indicate that the ships are exclusive in any way. Rather, the ability to just straight up buy them with real money is an opportunity exclusively limited to before launch. I've edited my post to reflect this.

Oh! Ya, I see what you mean. There are definitely folks who think the cash sales will stop at release. I know CIG and CR have said as much, but... Well. Let's just say I won't be surprised if we see a MWO-type model appear. Where concept sales happen for a limited time, and folks who pay get the new ship a few weeks earlier than the plebes.

I wouldn't actually mind that. It's worked really well to keep MWO rolling - and the balance usually works so that the new thing isn't uber - it's just novel.

But ya, if things fall that way there are going to be some vocally butt-hurt folks screaming about how their money pre-launch should be more valuable that yours post-launch.

 

[Vimon]

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...

I mean, the Hangar Module was released in mid-2013, Arena Commander Module was released in mid-2014, and the Star Marine Module was released at the end of 2016.

The only one left is the persistent universe one, which, albeit is also the largest and most complex one, is already available as a continuously-updating Alpha version since 2015.

I would imagine the Squadron 42 module will get released sometime mid-2018, which will be pretty much the last major piece missing from the game before it just goes to full 'Star Citizen' and enters alpha or beta in that regard.

"alpha or beta"
That is a huge difference. Beta means everything is there and you are down to fixing bugs more or less. Alpha is a kind of "we got the basics working" kind of stage. Given that there are currently 99.5ish Star systems missing, no jobs are available, and even ships that were sold years ago aren't in game yet it seems very optimistical that all this will be done in 6 months. Which leaves alpha and looking at low frame rates, and how some vehicles behave I doubt the basics are working till then, heck I doubt they will have the poo system with toilets in place (yep they actually went for that). Which means, food, water, stomach'ing, items to do that, environmental influences on that system ( jumping at 1G cost more energy than at 0.1G so does that increase the poo-meter faster or slower? )

And saying that even SQ will be out in 6 months when we just saw a pre recorded demo a year after they canceled that same demo 5 min before the show is well... they said 3.0 is ready in december of 2016, with jobs and all the good stuff then we got moons not planets and a 3.1+ delay for the rest.

There is a reason they removed the release date for SQ so best bet is 2019 at this point. And as for their 3 month release schedule, 3.0 June 2017, July, August...November for $15 a month. I would be amazed if they actually released 3.1 on their own timeline. Btw. is that public or internal timeline? I'm not really up to date on that but should be easy to answer because Star Citizen has the most transparent development ever seen.

edit: just don't ask them about the lawsuit on their forum. you might get banned.

 

[Vimon]

I thought OCS is a server side issue that gimps performance to a crawl in the online universe due to it not being implemented yet... For S42, everything is done locally with no game data streaming that needs to be culled by the server to optimize performance.

OCS is object container streaming, and has a lot to do with how the map will break down and get loaded. Without it, the megamap won't work properly, and they can't fully utilize the object container system.

Chris actually mentions this in the commentary for the vertical slice.(or maybe in a follow up, anywho it was within a day of the VS).

Single player doesn't really run into the entity count issue, but it can still be bogged when it needs to load a large amount of data.

My understanding is that currently, the servers basically tell you what everyone else on the server and their ships are doing, along with every piece of cargo in the game. OCS essentially culls non essential data from what is happening inside a ship on the other side of the verse.

I don’t know though... I thought this was why the single player modules or a freshly restarted server have really good FPS, while servers that have been up for a while choke your FPS pretty badly.

You're not entirely off base. It's only that OCS does more than that. While it does reduce the entity count, it's more about streaming the compartmentalized data. I think it also is involved in multiple layers of object containers.

I'm not a network guy so feel free to flame me but from what I find OCS is a piece of the network system. Is that correct?
If not then Flame
else
iirc the net code C lvl guy recently said that the netcode doesn't reduce the frame rate or performance. Might there be an overlap?

 

[eldakka]

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.

The difference is neither of those titles had a $170 million budget up-front.

Those projects had significantly less, so had to deliver based on budget, and as the released game based on that previous budget starts making money, they can add new features.

However, with an initial budget of $170m, you can add this, and that, and and and...

So they don't need to start making revenue (i.e. release a product) yet to pay for future capabilities, they can add all those now.

 

[Pizpot]

disregard

 

[eldakka]

Actually, as others have mentioned, that clause is your basic non-compete clause. Basically, CIG they cannot release their own engine within that time frame.

On second read, I can see how that is the intent of 2.4, but the wording is ambiguous enough that CryTek should be able to plead their case

"During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine"

Roberts Space Industries is an Affiliate of CIG, as Affiliate is defined as "any corporate entity (including any limited liability company) hat controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, another corporate or limited liability entity, where "control" means the ownership or control of more than fifty percent of the voting rights of such entity.

RSI then licensed Lumberyard from Amazon, which is the business of directly licensing a game engine which competes with CryEngine

I think you are getting confused with legal terminology, and the specifics of what it means and the limitations and specific scopes:

"During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine"

First of all, you have to understand the term engage in the business of.

Let's take some examples.

A car lease company, e.g. Budget, etc.

If such a company makes its own workshops with its own mechanics to maintain their cars that they lease out. You or I as an ordinary person can't bring our own cars into Budget and pay them to perform a service or other mechanical repairs. They are not engaging in the business of providing mechanical services. They are only engaging in the business of leasing vehicles. The mechanical services they perform on their own cars are not 'the business', they are an enabling service they undertake internally to enable their business (leasing cars).

Or let's take a bank as an example. A banks business is to provide banking services. If in-house they write their own banking software to do the transactions, run their ATMs, provide online banking services, and they do not sell on that software, they keep it internal - as a trade secret if you will - then they are not engaging in the business of software development. It is an enabling service for their business - banking.

Therefore we can see that CIG is not in the business of writing and selling engines. They are in the business of making a game that relies on an underlying service (like mechanics/workshops for a car lease business or software devs/computers for a bank) of a game engine. Even if they wrote their own game engine from scratch, as long as that engine wasn't available for sale/licensing to third parties, as long as it was only used in their own games where they sell/license a complete game, then they wouldn't be engaging in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which competes with CryEngine.

The law is all about being pedantic and reading exactly what has been written.

 

[AxMi-24]

The game industry really seems like they're trying to one-up Hollywood's accounting.

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.

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.

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...

Considering that what they promised is impossible to do with today's hardware it is not very surprising that they are delayed and that the final product will not be what was promised. There is only so much compute power available.

Compare to EVE online which is the only other game with those numbers of players involved and it is forced into 0,1 fps mode and still has issues when really big fights happen. Several thousands shooting at each other will bring any hardware to its knees and maintaining the playable FPS for a first person twitch based game is simply impossible.

 

[ShakesMcQueen]

The game industry really seems like they're trying to one-up Hollywood's accounting.

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.

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.

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...

This is such immature reasoning, and it's embarrassing that you have so many upvotes for it.

Yes, I'm sure CIG is "looking for any reason" to delay their games, as though there's some sort of malicious intent operative.

Christ, I doubt even most people who are cynics about the development of Star Citizen at this point, would seriously argue that they were, for any reason other than incompetent management of the project, and feature creep.

Star Citizen was originally planned for a 2014 release, based on a scaled back vision of the game that was abandoned when they rocketed past their original, incredibly modest fundraising goals. Using that old estimate as some sort of meaningful target is incredibly disingenuous.

I've got no problem with people who are skeptical about the long-term status of Star Citizen, even if I'm not (yet), because the project absolutely does seem to have some issues with locking down a feature set and focusing on releasing a product. But that's a far cry from implying they are coming up with excuses to keep missing release windows.

I'd say for anyone who has any familiarity with the development of SC, it's not at all a mystery why they keep having to push back their release schedule.

 

[ShakesMcQueen]

The game industry really seems like they're trying to one-up Hollywood's accounting.

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.

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.

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...

Considering that what they promised is impossible to do with today's hardware it is not very surprising that they are delayed and that the final product will not be what was promised. There is only so much compute power available.

Compare to EVE online which is the only other game with those numbers of players involved and it is forced into 0,1 fps mode and still has issues when really big fights happen. Several thousands shooting at each other will bring any hardware to its knees and maintaining the playable FPS for a first person twitch based game is simply impossible.

In the case of EVE, the backend of that game was pretty clearly not even intended for battles of the sizes they occasionally see between the major alliances, let alone client-side framerates, or whatever.

The game's "time dilation" feature causes these large battles to slow down (server-side) to a farcical degree, to the point where what would be a ten minute battle in real-time could take hours to actually execute.

 

[esoel_]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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.

If Microsoft and the NFL sign a deal that the NFL will exclusively use Surface Tablets on the sidelines, does that mean that

A. Microsoft cannot sell surface tablets to anyone except the NFL
B. The NFL cannot use non-surface tablets on the sidelines.

The "exclusivity" portion was added to the contract because CIG was getting a fairly good deal in terms of liscensing costs and support, in exchange for promoting their use of Cryengine. It's fairly cut and dry.

Looks like Start Citizen fanboys are out in arms downvoting logical thinking...

 

[stuza]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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.

It also wasn't in the the "Restrictions" part of the Contract, so therefore is not a "restriction".

 

[Deleted member 1]

I feel like I am reading the transcript of an episode of Judge Judy.

 

[marsilies]

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.

The difference is neither of those titles had a $170 million budget up-front...

Neither did Star Citizen. It had only raised $2 million on its Kickstarter, barely more than the £1.5 million Elite: Dangerous did.
https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/
https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/14614 ... dangerous/

Star Citizen has made the bulk of its funding after the Kickstarter and while it was developing the game. This isn't "upfront" money, but ongoing revenue.
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Crowdfunding_campaign
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1694467207
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

So Star Citizen is already generating revenue, despite being in alpha, and an impressive annual amount ($32 million 2015, $36 million 2016, $35 million 2017). On the flip side, each time they hit a significant milestone they added more "stretch goals" to the project, at least up until the $65 million point. Since then though they've kept adding new ships to sell, and now are looking to sell land and tanks, adding more stuff to implement into the game.
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Stretch_Goals

So a big question is if their revenue is keeping pace with the cost of development to implement all this stuff before people get tired of waiting for a finished game and revenue drops.
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Gamesan ... e_Cash.php

 

[SyfirSto]

Star Citizen is the video game equivalent of the Senate Launch System. Tons of funding and exposure but no results on the horizon.

Kinda sad state of affairs really, Chris Robert's last gem was Freelancer... a long time ago, despite all of the problems associated with it, it came out, and was damn good even without all the "nice-to-haves" he couldn't put into it. There HAS to be some kind of at least reasonably competent product by now to let people sink their teeth into no?

 

[Gibborim]

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.

The difference is neither of those titles had a $170 million budget up-front...

Neither did Star Citizen. It had only raised $2 million on its Kickstarter, barely more than the £1.5 million Elite: Dangerous did.
https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/
https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/14614 ... dangerous/

Star Citizen has made the bulk of its funding after the Kickstarter and while it was developing the game. This isn't "upfront" money, but ongoing revenue.
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Crowdfunding_campaign
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1694467207
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

So Star Citizen is already generating revenue, despite being in alpha, and an impressive annual amount ($32 million 2015, $36 million 2016, $35 million 2017). On the flip side, each time they hit a significant milestone they added more "stretch goals" to the project, at least up until the $65 million point. Since then though they've kept adding new ships to sell, and now are looking to sell land and tanks, adding more stuff to implement into the game.
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Stretch_Goals

So a big question is if their revenue is keeping pace with the cost of development to implement all this stuff before people get tired of waiting for a finished game and revenue drops.
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Gamesan ... e_Cash.php

When this Ponzi scheme collapses, it will be epic.

 

[darkdog]

CIG also argues that the "exclusive rights" to CryEngine granted in the license agreement do not extend to a requirement to use that engine. "The plain language of the GLA where the grant of rights to CIG appears, plus the well-established concept of an exclusive license, instead establish that the word 'exclusively' simply means 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," the company writes.

It's clearly CIG being "selective" and "misleading" here, by claiming that "exclusive" use of the engine meant that Crytek would never license it out to any other company, which is an absurd proposition considering CIG even went on to use Amazons licensed version of Cryengine.

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.

If Microsoft and the NFL sign a deal that the NFL will exclusively use Surface Tablets on the sidelines, does that mean that

A. Microsoft cannot sell surface tablets to anyone except the NFL
B. The NFL cannot use non-surface tablets on the sidelines.

The "exclusivity" portion was added to the contract because CIG was getting a fairly good deal in terms of liscensing costs and support, in exchange for promoting their use of Cryengine. It's fairly cut and dry.

Looks like Start Citizen fanboys are out in arms downvoting logical thinking...

Or you could try reading the comment thread, where multiple people have explained why this "logical thinking" has nothing to do with the matter at hand, and why what's actually written in the agreement doesn't require them to use CryEngine.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

I thought OCS is a server side issue that gimps performance to a crawl in the online universe due to it not being implemented yet... For S42, everything is done locally with no game data streaming that needs to be culled by the server to optimize performance.

OCS is object container streaming, and has a lot to do with how the map will break down and get loaded. Without it, the megamap won't work properly, and they can't fully utilize the object container system.

Chris actually mentions this in the commentary for the vertical slice.(or maybe in a follow up, anywho it was within a day of the VS).

Single player doesn't really run into the entity count issue, but it can still be bogged when it needs to load a large amount of data.

My understanding is that currently, the servers basically tell you what everyone else on the server and their ships are doing, along with every piece of cargo in the game. OCS essentially culls non essential data from what is happening inside a ship on the other side of the verse.

I don’t know though... I thought this was why the single player modules or a freshly restarted server have really good FPS, while servers that have been up for a while choke your FPS pretty badly.

You're not entirely off base. It's only that OCS does more than that. While it does reduce the entity count, it's more about streaming the compartmentalized data. I think it also is involved in multiple layers of object containers.

I'm not a network guy so feel free to flame me but from what I find OCS is a piece of the network system. Is that correct?
If not then Flame
else

It is and it's not.

In a nutshell, OCS is a tech that handles how Object Containers are loaded. Object containers being how SC breaks up both the map and complex objects so they can be loaded in a way that the engine can handle.

To my understanding(and this could be wrong) OCS is required to limit how much of the Object container tree is loaded, and without it the entire container needs to be loaded.

IE Crusader is an object container that contains all it's moons and stations. Each moon is also a container, as is each station or outpost etc.

So when the crusader container is loaded, it also loads it's subcontainers and all their contents, causing significantly more load that it should.

With OCS, the crusader container would only load the subcontainers that are in visual range, and only the top level of it.

So if you were say in visual range of Port Olisar, It would be loaded, but all it's internal data would not be as it's a subcontainer of port Olisar. Once you're close enough to actually see inside, then it would load that internal data so you can see the people inside the station.

iirc the net code C lvl guy recently said that the netcode doesn't reduce the frame rate or performance. Might there be an overlap?

This is something that's widely misunderstood. Keep in mind that "netcode" isn't really a thing, but a collective term that is used in different ways.

The particular quote your talking about is from a dev that works specifically on the communication code, and what he is saying is essentially this:

The code that moves data from the server to the client and visa versa is operating properly, and is not the cause of the slow down. The issue is a level above that, in how the server selects what data to send to the client.

OCS is more on the client server level, which is where the problems stem from(Lack of OCS was cited by Chris Roberts in the VS commentary as the main cause for frameloss in the demo). That said it likely does have some overlap with the communication code, as that likely needs to have some specific instructions for the OCS system.

 

[Matt_H]

Also, what's with all of these comments from backers saying 'if my computer were up to par but it isn't? I assume most of the backers are PC gamers who regularly play other games. Do they expect to only sell this game to people with $2500+ systems? I mean it's spaceships in space. What are they demanding be done client-side that is so horribly intensive?

This is not uncommon - in fact it's odd how so very often people who are commenting in Star Citizen articles don't seem to have any grasp whatsoever of what the game actually consists of... beyond what's in the header picture I guess (by the way Kyle that header picture is I think a Photoshop job of some sort, looks like it bears only passing relation to actual SC game footage - concept art?)

dramamoose, it's really not just 'spaceships in space'. I'm not a Star Citizen backer but I like to check out their progress every so often, so here's a recent gameplay trailer. Everything here (including all the video screens) is rendered in realtime all the way through.

https://youtu.be/BHR1aEdTA4M

You can probably click through the video a half dozen times to get the idea; if you do, note that there were no loading screens in the parts you skipped because everything is one continuous open world.

 

[Sqrlmonger]

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.

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.

These are the only two points I disagree with you on.

The first one because I don't think you understood CIG's position. They are not saying they have an exclusive right to use CryEngine and Crytek cannot sell the engine to others, but rather they have the exclusive right to use CryEngine in "the game". The language is very consistent on that and based on Leonard French's (actual copyright lawyer) discussion of it is pretty boilerplate stuff that just protects their interests.

The practical effect is that buying or obtaining the rights to publish/develop the game, when it was actually still built on CryEngine, would be useless without also this exclusive license to use the CryEngine in "the game". Again, it was just to protect their investment in the license.

On the second point, I'm not sure I see the "wrinkle" as the potential issue that you do. The modifications could absolutely be sublicensed as modifications to Lumberyard, even if perhaps not CryEngine (which is not totally clear to me anyways, but irrelevant at this point regardless).

Full disclosure I am a backer, but I don't take umbrage at the displeasure others express about the game taking as long as it has to be completed. I think they are entitled to whatever expectations and frustrations they have as CIG has not always been the best at managing reasonable expectations.

Nevertheless, I don't even remotely buy into the doomsayers who think the game is a scam. It's pretty clearly not based on what is already playable. That's not to say there is a ton to do in the game at the moment, but what is there is, and I can say this as a developer myself, is not even remotely achievable with a mentality of a quick cash-grab and run. They are clearly making a good faith effort to deliver, and reasonable people certainly have room to argue about the degree to which they are succeeding, though perhaps not much room at all to argue about its timeliness.

 

[marsilies]

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.

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.

These are the only two points I disagree with you on.

The first one because I don't think you understood CIG's position. They are not saying they have an exclusive right to use CryEngine and Crytek cannot sell the engine to others, but rather they have the exclusive right to use CryEngine in "the game". The language is very consistent on that and based on Leonard French's (actual copyright lawyer) discussion of it is pretty boilerplate stuff that just protects their interests....

The problem is that CIG actually cites and quotes cases that are referring to "exclusive licenses" exactly as I describe:

Crytek’s house of cards pleading tries to restrict, rather than protect, CIG’s granted rights. Ninth Circuit copyright jurisprudence regarding exclusivity accords with the GLA, underscoring the absurdity of Crytek’s attempt. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “the essence of an ‘exclusive’ license under the [Copyright] Act is that ‘the copyright holder permits the licensee to use the protected material for a specific use and further promises that the same permission will not be given to others.” Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997, 1005 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 1996)

So if that wasn't their intended meaning, they muddied the waters with their citations.

Also, I wasn't impressed with Leonard French's recent video on it. It seemed like mainly an edited version of a livestream of him reading both Crytek's motion and the attached exhibits for the first time. He didn't seem to have read them ahead of time, and wasn't considering the whole in his comments (he couldn't, as he hadn't read the whole).

On the second point, I'm not sure I see the "wrinkle" as the potential issue that you do. The modifications could absolutely be sublicensed as modifications to Lumberyard, even if perhaps not CryEngine...

Except they were developed as modifications to CryEngine, which CIG isn't allowed to sublicense. It's like, if another gaming company also had a licence to use CryEngine, CIG couldn't sublicense their mods to them. And Lumberyard is CryEngine, on a technical level. And the main point is that CIG isn't allowed to sublicense the mods, no matter to what company or what engine. They couldn't even sublicense them to a company using Unreal, even though the modifications likely would be of little to no use. I don't think CIG can just go "these CryEngine modifications we developed over years of using CryEngine are no longer CryEngine modifications because we're using a different (same, but different branding) engine."

But again, it's conjecture on my part, and not something Crytek has directly contested, yet.

 

[Agent.nihilist]

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.

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.

These are the only two points I disagree with you on.

The first one because I don't think you understood CIG's position. They are not saying they have an exclusive right to use CryEngine and Crytek cannot sell the engine to others, but rather they have the exclusive right to use CryEngine in "the game". The language is very consistent on that and based on Leonard French's (actual copyright lawyer) discussion of it is pretty boilerplate stuff that just protects their interests....

The problem is that CIG actually cites and quotes cases that are referring to "exclusive licenses" exactly as I describe:

Crytek’s house of cards pleading tries to restrict, rather than protect, CIG’s granted rights. Ninth Circuit copyright jurisprudence regarding exclusivity accords with the GLA, underscoring the absurdity of Crytek’s attempt. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “the essence of an ‘exclusive’ license under the [Copyright] Act is that ‘the copyright holder permits the licensee to use the protected material for a specific use and further promises that the same permission will not be given to others.” Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 795 F.3d 997, 1005 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 1996)

So if that wasn't their intended meaning, they muddied the waters with their citations.

Also, I wasn't impressed with Leonard French's recent video on it. It seemed like mainly an edited version of a livestream of him reading both Crytek's motion and the attached exhibits for the first time. He didn't seem to have read them ahead of time, and wasn't considering the whole in his comments (he couldn't, as he hadn't read the whole).

It is, the full stream is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNJgrqQlim8
That said, he does indicate that this is not his first reading of it, and is going through the claims in-order for the stream.

 

[marsilies]

Also, I wasn't impressed with Leonard French's recent video on it. It seemed like mainly an edited version of a livestream of him reading both Crytek's motion and the attached exhibits for the first time. He didn't seem to have read them ahead of time, and wasn't considering the whole in his comments (he couldn't, as he hadn't read the whole).

It is, the full stream is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNJgrqQlim8
That said, he does indicate that this is not his first reading of it, and is going through the claims in-order for the stream.

He says he "took a look" at it prior to the stream, but it become clear that he didn't thoroughly read all the materials, especially the exhibits.

Here's the edited video, which he leads off with his confusion about the inclusion of Section 6.1.1, which he seems baffled and surprised by:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNJgrqQlim8

Another thing is that the edited video just skips the exhibits and the amendment to the GLA via an edit. In the full stream video, you see that he just quickly scrolls by GLA exhibits 1-3 without fully reading or commenting, and does a quick scan of the amendment. Also, he's very surprised by the Autodesk EULA.

So it very much seems a "first impressions" video to me. I assume he had only quickly skimmed it prior to make sure it wasn't just hot garbage.