Star Citizen Breaking News

[premiumnugz]

  Saul always reminds me of Ortwin... Maybe when this whole fiasco finally implodes they can hire him to be Saul's on screen wheeler-dealer twin brother.

[Bubba]

Yes, ad homines, like mocking the opposition as non practicing YouTube lawyers. Okay, you might try to counter that the fact they are non practicing and using YouTube to generate revenue is relevant, since they are appealing to their own authority.
But it would be better to point to the fact that these YouTube clowns don't see the obvious weaknesses in their arguments, like the difference between a statement in recital and in the body, which we even saw. I mean, Derek, you've made some good arguments,  and collectively there's been some good arguments made on this board. There's also been a lot of bad arguments and some specious crap. But a lawyer's job is to assess and employ arguments, not the authority making them. Those YouTube lawyers would do well to read what's being said here,  even if they disagree. They wouldn't find the Skadden response so surprising.

That said, I do suspect Derek of having sources close to the litigation. How else would be know that Ortwin in the waiver presented CIG as a third party and did not disclose the public fact that he was a founding member? Assuming, of course, that the waiver says what Skadden claims it does.
Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,  and that alone should be enough to get to discovery. The response is measured in its tone, but devastating in its depth: that's why they shouldn't have pressed the Ortwin issue, look they admitted to breaking the contract.

[dsmart]

Yes, ad homines, like mocking the opposition as non practicing YouTube lawyers.

The term doesn't mean what you think it means. I would suggest that you look it up before using it, let alone accusing someone of it.

Okay, you might try to counter that the fact they are non practicing and using YouTube to generate revenue is relevant, since they are appealing to their own authority.

No I won't. Because I'm not a moron.

That said, I do suspect Derek of having sources close to the litigation. How else would be know that Ortwin in the waiver presented CIG as a third party and did not disclose the public fact that he was a founding member? Assuming, of course, that the waiver says what Skadden claims it does.

So you're arguing with yourself now, then?

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&pagenumber=3519&perpage=40#post480416413

"Because I have credible sources, I can safely say that it's as absolutely fucking hilarious as it is disastrous for RSI/CIG. And it's coming tomorrow.

I think backers are going to be walking off cliffs when they read the brutal take down of Ortwin over his conflict of interest. Or how they completely shred CIG for their attempt at re-defining the intent of the word "exclusive" as used in 2.1.2. They called it "absurd", and I hear that at least one sentence had the word "nonsense" (a Derek Smart trademark) in it.

Tomorrow can't come soon enough, and I have Pacer in an auto-refresh tab already."

Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact, 

It's not. CIG already said that they switched. The issue is that they claim the GLA allows them to do so, while Crytek says that it doesn't.

[Bubba]

page 8: "In any event, Defendants' bare assertion that they "are not using any copyrighted work belonging to Crytek" ... presents a disputed factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss."

It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?


And, yeah, I am arguing with myself. Beneath all the bluster and insults, there's some very solid intelligence coming out here. Compare that to the SC media engine, where whiny boys fall over each other to invent a narrative on what's actually happening. My point was that the reason the CryTek response wasn't surprising was because, following the discussion here, we already knew what it would look like.

[Kyrt]

It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?

I would personally question CIGs assertions that it took a couple of engineers two days to perform the switch.

Testing of the assets, modules, code, etc to ensure that everything still worked, modifying those that didn't and recreating those that needed to be recreated for the new engine would take longer. While both engines have a similar ancestor, both Amazon and CIG were up front that both engines had received major changes.

Maybe they are right, maybe their info is accurate....but I wouldn't bet on it. And from what others have said, what CIG actually did ion those two days was integrate some AWS modules form LY and switch the splash screens. That strikes me as being more suited to 2 or 3 days work.

[StanTheMan]

page 8: "In any event, Defendants' bare assertion that they "are not using any copyrighted work belonging to Crytek" ... presents a disputed factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss."

It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?


And, yeah, I am arguing with myself. Beneath all the bluster and insults, there's some very solid intelligence coming out here. Compare that to the SC media engine, where whiny boys fall over each other to invent a narrative on what's actually happening. My point was that the reason the CryTek response wasn't surprising was because, following the discussion here, we already knew what it would look like.

I am not sure how much you are saying is getting lost in translation here on this forum and how much your intentions are understood...but.

It is not remotely credible that CIG got the CryEngine out of SC, not then, not now, not ever - unless they delete it and start again.    Lumberyard or no Lumberyard.

On the other matter, there is bluster and there is informed opinion.

It isnt always easy to determine who has credibility on a subject and who is essentially just expressing an opinion based on limited expertise.

Derek has plenty of expertise and thats derived from years of practical experience, the brainpower to understand the subject matter and wisdom that comes with age.

The rest of us by and large hint at our credentials in our various posts and would probably be willing to go into more detail if asked about our expertise on various subjects and how long or short we are in the tooth.

[Bubba]

It's okay. I save my coherent writing for my professional work.
But if I want to talk about the SC train wreck, this is the place to do it, for the reasons that have been outlined, for the most part.

I mean, I don't think Dr. Smart is excessively intelligent or wise, but he has three endearing qualities:
A. He's got the internet gift of ubiquity. If you mention his name in a public forum, he will reply. Maybe he can't keep up with the sheer volume of Shitizen hatred, but I doubt it.
B. He's stubborn and will defend causes decades after they're lost.
C. He's not stupid.

Chris Roberts, Ortwin and company could have avoided all this if they just acted like everyone else and ignored Dr. Smart's ranting. But they didn't. They took the bait then, just as they took the bait in the complaint, replying to what they had better left ignored. They handed Dr. Smart this role.

Like many folks here, I've been around a while, and when I saw these amazing ads for ships, I smelled something fishy: you can't just announce a smuggler ship in an adversarial MMO environment; that takes prototyping, playtesting, and tweaking. Then, when they actually went after Derek, well, that got my attention. The rest is a story of, at best, spectacularly bad management.

About my argument with myself:

"So it's irrelevant to me how people view sourced material. Believe what you want, I don't care. And nobody cares what YOU think."

I wouldn't ask Dr. Smart to give up his sourced material. But I would observe that his sources have until now accurately predicted CryTek's moves. He's now claiming that the worst (for CIG and companies) is yet to come. I'm also sure that CryTek would be very happy to settle, and having a third party make such claims would be very much in their interest in applying pressure.
So, are they gonna call the bluff or fold here? 'cos my gut tells me it's not a bluff.

[FredBloggs]

Hi Sandi, more alt posts?  :woof:

[dsmart]

It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?

Clearly you haven't been paying attention, have you?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/954724633344913408.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/949626014367469568.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948952076004089857.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/948544238790299648.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942753856332685312.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/942373527893798912.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/940947796794003457.html
http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/

[dsmart]

About my argument with myself:
I wouldn't ask Dr. Smart to give up his sourced material. But I would observe that his sources have until now accurately predicted CryTek's moves. He's now claiming that the worst (for CIG and companies) is yet to come. I'm also sure that CryTek would be very happy to settle, and having a third party make such claims would be very much in their interest in applying pressure.
So, are they gonna call the bluff or fold here? 'cos my gut tells me it's not a bluff.

The worst that's coming, has nothing to do with the Crytek lawsuit.

FYI, those here who are in my private Discord channel, know that I've been talking about this particular Crytek lawsuit for almost a year now. But of course I couldn't say anything. Once I got the all clear that it was filed and I could make it public, that's when I did. And that's when the world first knew about it.

[Bubba]

Clearly you haven't been paying attention, have you?

Now you're arguing with yourself.

I stated:

Key takeaways: whether CryEngine was removed is a contested point of fact,

You replied:

It's not. CIG already said that they switched. The issue is that they claim the GLA allows them to do so, while Crytek says that it doesn't.

As a matter of fact, we CIG claims that they switched and removed CryEngine. In this reply, CryTek is claiming that this fact needs to be determined. That makes it a contested point of fact for the case.
It also matches a point that you've been making all along.

---
Worse? Criminal charges filed? Coutts loan called in, triggered by some sort safety clause? Sudden bankruptcy? There's many ways this can get worse.

[dsmart]

Now you're arguing with yourself.

You're going around in circles. I specifically quoted what I was responding to. Which was this:

"It's not disputed that they're using Lumberyard. But would you state with certainty that they completely removed CryEngine beforehand?"

You are asking me a question for which my stance has been solid since I first wrote a blog about it in Dec 2016 when they claimed to have switched. That opinion has been echoed in ALL the links I provided in my response above.

[StanTheMan]

And on Lumberyard....

If one recalls CRoberts said it had taken them a couple of days IIRC to switch from Cryengine to Lumberyard when the Lumberyard logo appeared in SC and people noticed it.

You don't have to be a software developer to know that is bullshit.

We are talking about a piece of software that forms the framework and toolkit that SC is built around and at that point had supposedly been in development for over 4 years with a multitude of people working on it.  people that included inexperienced interns, contractors and experienced developers including previous Crytek employees.  All led by a dictatorial Programme Manager and his attention seeking inexperienced in business wife.

It isn't remotely plausible given the trouble we all have changing ANYTHING that complicated systems, processes or engineering are built upon.

It would have taken longer to change the carpet in their various offices !

And that's before we consider it was all done over Christmas ...

Now they have had plenty of time since then but that's another matter when expertise in this type of software is required and has been provided by Derek, backed up by many others.

[Bubba]

Indeed. And this is why it is so important to emphasize that whether CIG/RSI removed CryEngine is,  for the lawsuit, a disputed point of fact. CryTek did not say, "yes, we grant that CryEngine was removed with the switch to LY," but rather left room for some fun in discovery. CIG says they removed all coprighted material, CryTek disputes this. This wrinkle is first made explicit in their reply to the MtD. Yes, it's what Derek has been saying all along.

[jwh1701]

If they had done all they claimed to the crytek engine then made the switch in two days I find it hard to believe.
We switched our server nos install program from a windows base to linux and it took us 1 1/2 months including creating about 1200 test scripts at IBM. I would have to think that the SC coding in greatly more complex than install nos to servers.  Looking over the claims made I just cannot understand how they did it in two days.

Since I'm unfamiliar with game development is it possible that the modules all ride on top of the base with out touching core architecture? Similar to how you can expand program functionality like plugins? That is the only way I could understand the two day change over. But I would suspect it hinder performance by doing so instead of having the functionality built into crytek engine.