Are the damages really bad that will come from this? There are some on reddit saying a 2 million value.
If it was $2M, CIG would have settled this back in 2016-2017. It's not like they didn't have the money to do so.
No, it's not $2M. It's going to be way higher than that. Plus, if Crytek re-file (as the judge suggested) to re-word their complaint as per 2.1.2 (granted in the MtD) and 2.4, while explaining why they are due punitive damages (granted in the MtD), we're talking much, much higher awards.
For comparison (and this was years ago, and their are higher awards now per precedent), this is what a court awarded Epic Games in their suit against Silicon Knights for basically the same issue.
https://www.engadget.com/2012/11/09/silicon-knights-v-epic-games-judgment/The long and short of this is that CIG/RSI are facing a very serious issue that could have long-term ramifications. That they could even hope to settle this for less than $20M, is a pipe-dream; unless of course CryTek are desperate and willing to take whatever they can, plus attorney fees. Even with the punitive damages temporarily off the table – assuming they don’t re-file as per the judge’s suggestion (bottom of last page in the filing) – the breach in Section 2.4 alone is already a major slam dunk. Combining that with copyright infringement as it pertains to SQ42 being a separate game, the damages go through the roof. For context and comparison (and that was back in 2012), Epic Games won massive damages (later doubled!) against Silicon Knights, and bankrupted the company in the end. And they took advantage of the injunctive relief, forcing SK – via court order – to remove and destroy all their products from market. That’s how bad this is. That we’re in 2018, where new precedent for damages have been set and won, well you can guess the rest.
ps: Those clowns on Reddit are clueless. Best not to pay attention to them as they have zero incentive to be forthcoming even if they knew wtf they were talking about. Those were the same guys saying Crytek had no case. The judge just proved that not to be the case, and even pointed Crytek to an ever bigger claim (section 2.4) which Crytek wasn't even going for.
