Star Citizen Breaking News

[dsmart]

What "hosting" are you talking about? CIG is paying for AWS just like they were paying for Google Compute.

I believe the switch to Lumberyard I feel were because of these reasons. They made the most sense.

1) On-going Lumberyard support without having to pay yearly support fees to Crytek

2) Ability to split SQ42 into a separate game without needing to buy another license from Crytek. And Crytek would have had no incentive to give them a royalty-free license given the history of the two companies, as well as the fact that they paid over $2M for a single game license back in 2012

3) Lumberyard is royalty-free

4) Lumberyard being a more advanced derivative of CryEngine, made it even more feasible to do

[Wipeout]

Because it is being marketed and promoted and sold as a game that does not require Star Citizen.

That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.

[Motto]

I think that Chris was just looking for a way to stay afloat just a bit longer. My best guess is that he already knew back then that he'd screwed up beyond repair so hoping that switching to LY would buy him some time and/or extra money. No way he really thought he could still save SC. If he truly believed that, he's even more stupid than I thought.

[StanTheMan]

Well I am done with him unless he provides a better argument.
I have no love for the game, rather I find the whole situation fascinating.  I only pledged to get the full experience out of this whole situation.  If a game actually manages to come out of this, then it will be pleasant surprise, but I am not expecting it at all, I lean more to that everything will be shut down before they get anything completed at worst and at the best they'll release something mediocre compared to what it was supposed to be, and give the worst scenario the highest probability.  But that doesn't mean that I will automatically be against CIG on everything that comes to them, I'll put research into it, find relevant opinions, learn something new, to come to the conclusions that I do.

I do give my feedback on game development, just in case that my "best" scenario does actually happen, then at least I can feel I put in some feedback that they may or may not have listed to.  Though they have not listed to suggestion I made so far, lol.

How much research have you sonme into what being a competent Programme Manager involves and then holding Croberts to, I dont know .. at least 25% of that standard ?

Thats before we get into any other analysis of his character and behaviours on this.

[StanTheMan]

Chris took a gamble that Crytek wouldn't survive as a company so after they collapsed, he'd have their engine for himself without any further payments or issues whatsoever. Then Crytek survived. And then Chris realised he couldn't build the game he pitched, if he could build the game at all. And keeping it running would cost a fortune. But hey, look, Amazon has taken a license from Crtyek. And they're building on CryEngine too. So moving from our Cryengine to Amazon's Cryengine should be way easier than moving towards another completely different engine. And Amazon doesn't charge for the hosting too. So, that'll solve my problems for now and since we're sticking with Crytek in some way, they probably won't mind. And if they do, well, we're fucked anyway, so I'll burn that bridge the way I always burn all my bridges.

And whilst all that was going on Crytek were there waving at him saving, "hey we are still here, lets talk" .. Ortwin and Croberts said fuck off and so we are now here.

All this will come out when the judge decides what is right here and who has acted badly...that will inform their decision and the judge will be directed towards the cracks that will enable that decision to be made by the judge....

[Wipeout]

How much research have you sonme into what being a competent Programme Manager involves and then holding Croberts to, I dont know .. at least 25% of that standard ?

Thats before we get into any other analysis of his character and behaviours on this.

I am not sure how your question is relevant to the discussion about the lawsuit.

[Kyrt]

That does not mean it will not require the SC client, and currently it does need the SC client to play anything from the SQ42 package.

You will be able to play it without buying the game game known as Star Citizen. By deginition, it will have to work without it.

[Wipeout]

You will be able to play it without buying the game game known as Star Citizen. By deginition, it will have to work without it.

Can you explain to me how to run the 2 modules that come with SQ42 without using the Star Citizen client?

The stipulation is that it uses the SC client, there is no reason to believe that it will not use the SC client.

[Kyrt]

Can you explain to me how to run the 2 modules that come with SQ42 without using the Star Citizen client?[/quoye]

They aren't S42

The stipulation is that it uses the SC client, there is no reason to believe that it will not use the SC client.

Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.

[Wipeout]

Then it wpuldn't be a standalone game.

CIG doesn't call it "standalone"

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15189-Package-Split-Information

They call it ala carte options:
"Why split Squadron 42 and Star Citizen?
When we started Star Citizen’s crowdfunding campaign, the plan was that earlier backers would get a lower price on the Star Citizen starter package than those that backed later. The plan was to first gradually increase the price and then split up various modules for “a la carte options.” This gave backers who joined the project early on and helped get it off the ground an advantage. With the package split, we’re accomplishing this objective without increasing the amount of money needed to join the persistent universe. The ‘package split’ is the first introduction of the anticipated a la carte option: you can pick which part of the game you’re interested in, for now the single player campaign or the persistent universe, and then can choose whether or not to purchase the other module as an add-on."

Bold parts are important. Looks like to me this fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2, which even includes selling addons as being allowed. It also fufills their right to market/sell the "Game" as they see fit.

They go on to say in that article:

Are Star Citizen and Squadron 42 still connected?

YES! 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. And your performance in Squadron 42 will still have an impact on your career in the persistent universe, whether you buy both segments together or if you choose to add one further down the line. Finally, you will receive access to Star Citizen’s Arena Commander with the “Squadron 42” pledge to practice your flying skills. We continue to see Squadron 42 and Star Citizen as two modules that make up a larger whole. While we know not everyone enjoys both single and multiplayer games, we would certainly encourage you to try both for the complete Star Citizen experience!

Again, showing that it fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2.

[dsmart]

Again, showing that it fulfills the stipulations set forth in Exhibit 2.

The core of the issue is not that there is a separate module called Squadron 42, like there is Star Marine, Arena Commander etc. It's that they are SELLING IT AS A SEPARATE PRODUCT. How hard is this to understand? Whether or not the GLA allows them to do that, is up to the court to decide. In ALL software licensing agreements, the number of licenses depends on the license granted. Right now, if you licensed UE4, you get the engine free, but you pay $5 royalties upon release - forever. If you make one game, then split and sell it as two separate commercial products, you would end up paying 5% on royalties on each one.



And Exhibit 2 clearly defines the definition of GAME in that it INCLUDES 3 entities COLLECTIVELY, not SEPARATELY.



It's as if you buy a bundle of 3 items on Amazon, but instead of receiving all 3, you receive 2, then the vendor decides to sell the other 1 separately. Or if a vendor gives a third-party the rights to sell a bundle of 3 of their items for $10, but the party decides to sell them separately at $5 each, thus breaching the agreement to sell them as a bundle.

Also...

What is a la carte?

according to a menu or list that prices items separately

[Wipeout]

Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC.  It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client.  SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.

But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts, and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court..  But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.

[Resin]

Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC.  It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client.  SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.

But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts, and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court..  But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.

How is it ”add-on” if you can buy only the ”add-on”?

[dsmart]

Exhibit 2 allows for add-ons/DLC.  It Also states they cannot sell a game separately and does not use the SC client.  SQ42 interacts with SC, it uses the same client, and it is sold as an add-on, which fulfils the terms of exhibit 2.

That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

You DO know what a DLC is, right? I means it is an add-on to a main product.

SQ42 is NOT an add-on as it does NOT require Star Citizen for it to work. It doesn't matter if it is launched from the same launcher like Star Marine, Arena Commander or not. As long as it is stand-alone, and sold separately, it is not DLC.

But you are right, it is for the courts to decide, but my feeling it will never go to the courts,

It is already in court.

and give high probability that the judge will dismiss some of the lawsuit, and the rest is settled out of court.. 

The judge can't dismiss any part of the lawsuit. She can only agree to or deny parts of the MtD which pertain to the original complaint.

But I really want to see it go to court because crytek hopefully would have found evidence to show the intent is different than what the golden rule might show.

The Golden Rule is immaterial to this case; and that's what I expect the judge's ruling to show. In fact, the MtD hurts CIG more than it helps, because it's just going to give them an idea of how good or bad the case is for them. Which is where settlements come from.

[Wipeout]

That's wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

You DO know what a DLC is, right? I means it is an add-on to a main product.

SQ42 is NOT an add-on as it does NOT require Star Citizen for it to work. It doesn't matter if it is launched from the same launcher like Star Marine, Arena Commander or not. As long as it is stand-alone, and sold separately, it is not DLC.

It is already in court.

The judge can't dismiss any part of the lawsuit. She can only agree to or deny parts of the MtD which pertain to the original complaint.

The Golden Rule is immaterial to this case; and that's what I expect the judge's ruling to show. In fact, the MtD hurts CIG more than it helps, because it's just going to give them an idea of how good or bad the case is for them. Which is where settlements come from.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this, for me there is to much against crytek at this time, and if Crytek doesn't have proper evidence then I won't be surprised that this case will only be about specific bugsmashers videos and not giving updates to Crytek.  After the research I have done, I can't deny what 3 law professionals have stated which gives more credit to the conclusion I came to.  That conclusion being CIG did not breach the GLA in the stuff that they responded too, and that the contract and exhibit 2 do support what they did with the package split.  You say I am wrong, but honestly what you are saying looks wrong to me based on what the GLA says .

We will have to wait and see .  Hopefully Crytek response is going to include evidence to support thier side.