Star Citizen

Discussion in 'PC Games' started by Mikuji, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    From bass' reddit link:
    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/92/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/ page 10, lines 1-5.

    I aint seeing copyright here mate. Did you go through these documents or just what someone on reddit said?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  2. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was wrong it wasn't documents, it was their response to a written discovery (a document?!).

    https://www.docdroid.net/t4uERy1/031132165356.pdf#page=2 page 2, line 23 onwards.

    Actually did you read it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  3. Sphinx2000

    Sphinx2000 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Messages:
    8,433
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
    miicah likes this.
  4. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Cool thanks for that. So its all about the GLA (licensing for SC and not SQ42 and providing code improvements) and nothing to do with copyright (short of CIG having to show Cryengine logos etc). So if bassy could clarify that would be great.

    So the solution is to "Bake" SQ42 back into SC and refund any $45 purchases of the standalone game

    AND

    Move to lumberyard OR provide "credits" (code updates) back to Crytek.

    Also that big remark on how CIG plans to release SQ42 must be juicy, shame it wont ever be seen.
     
  5. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Man the comment section in that video is funnier than this thread!
     
  6. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Brisbane
    "Crytek’s copyright claim for Squadron 42 will be dismissed"

    That is making no claim that there are hidden documents that show anything relating to what you were claiming.

    I guess the question is if they could get these tax credits if the two games were joined together.

    Refunds are not needed.

    Squadron 42 is simply the singleplayer campaign of Star Citizen, everyone will still get what they paid for.

    The easiest way is probably to have a free base game with nothing in it, and "DLC" or "Expansions" for the MMO and campaign.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  7. XanaTos

    XanaTos Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,078
    Someone didn't understand the video.
     
  8. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The copyright claim in other parts is to them showing the cryengine logo.... not the IP for that game.

    It's simply the single player campaign? Then why did they advertise it as a standalone game?
     
  9. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Money

    $130 for a game with a campaign and multiplayer is very expensive.

    $65 for a singleplayer space game and $65 for a MMO space game sounds a lot more reasonable.

    It hasn't always been a standalone game, but once they did, they also wanted to raise prices.

    I would also like to remind you that in 2015, both SQ42 and MMO cost about $37 AUD. Its a large jump to the $130 AUD it is now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2020
  10. Nethiuz

    Nethiuz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2019
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    QLD
    This is the biggest argument i've ever seen in a simple game thread.
    Does anybody here actually want it to fail? if so why?
    If not i understand criticism, i am sceptical as fuck but i have been enjoying Alpha 3.8 and putting in some hours, sure it's behind, sure it may never finish. For now i got my $$ worth. However i do hope it comes to fruition because the end goal is pretty amazing and would be something most people could enjoy!
     
  11. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Adelaide
    You said all of page two. Did you even read it?
     
    Nethiuz likes this.
  12. sparz14

    sparz14 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    951
    Location:
    BRISBANE northside!
    Exactly. I wish we could just talk about the game itself
     
  13. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I did, but you still don't understand this copyright claim you keep going on about and how irrelevant it is to the conversation. Keep deflecting and pointing to the pointless part of the legal document and stick you head in the sand for the rest of it that actually could be an issue for CIG.
     
  14. Smegenstein

    Smegenstein Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,688
    Location:
    Hobart - TAS
    Yeah, let us know when there is actually a game to talk about :lol:
     
  15. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I’m beginning to think you haven’t even read your linked document.
    I’m aware of all the claims Crytek has in play, including the already dismissed one.

    The reason the copyright claim is important is because that’s the only reason to delay now. They don’t get statutory damages. They have to prove actual and that requires a product.

    Tell me how that bit is pointless?
     
    Nethiuz likes this.
  16. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    What is the copyright claim for? I want to know what you think it's for.

    *edit* I'll also add the reason for delay is because SQ42 wont be released by the time the hearing would go live. Can't sue for a GLA breach when there isn't a game officially using the license.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  17. bassyblue

    bassyblue Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Adelaide
    The copyright claim is over the source code displayed in the bugsmashers episodes. Despite not actually showing when and where the code has been shown.
    They need S24 to release so that an actual amount of "damages" to be determined since they filed the copyright post-lawsuit.

    If they are going after copyright for the breach of GLA, it's going to be a hard sell because of:

    "WHEREAS Licensee desires to use, and Crytek desires to grant the license to use, the "Cryengine" for the game currently entitled "Space Citizen" and its related space fighter game "Squadron 42," together hereafter the "Game", pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement;"

    And lumberyard.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2020
  18. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Interesting, I definitely didn't perceive it that way but it does make sense.

    The bugsmashers thing is a small issue, from memory lumberyards agreement is that only 50 lines of code could be shared which the show would have done way more of... whether Crytek have the same stipulation I'm unsure.

    The bigger issue is probably faceware, who knows how much of the codebase was shared with them! Again that may have been after the switch... all the years just meld together now.

    I'm sure any of the episodes in question will have been pulled by now if that was the case, I remember seeing reddit threads about it back when.
     
  19. qwertylesh

    qwertylesh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,734
    i want to see it fail, just because im a prick and would like to see what happened to me with Spore happen to others.
     
  20. FoxMaN

    FoxMaN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    888
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Nope, there are still episodes with cryengine/lumberyard code in it. All pretty useless from what I've see (just calling functions) but whether even that is allowed... a judge would decide
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: