Danakar Endeel

https://www.docdroid.net/Btqzzhy/031128797590.pdf Looks like CryTek's lawyers (Skadden) already anticipated that certain parts would not survive the MtD because they knew they were spouting bullshit (with their twisted version of 'Exclusive Use' and trying to get Punitive Damages when they knew that's not even allowed by California State Law) and had already loaded up their Second Amended Complaint to immediately switch the focus from 2.1 (where they wanted to twist a grant to use CryEngine into a restriction to only ever use CryEngine) in order to try and pull the same stunt with 2.4 by once again twisting a standard non-compete clause by citing select words out of context where suddenly they want to fool the Court into believing that it now means CIG can't continue working with Amazon's Lumberyard because that's now ... 'promoting any game engine which competes with CryEngine' when in reality it apparently means that CIG is simply not allowed to modify CryEngine or use what they learned from it to create their own engine and then promote it to sell licenses as direct competition to CryEngine. Like for instance calling their version StarEngine (which is fine) and then licensing it to Bungie or something (which is not allowed). Skadden also seems in a desperate hurry and now want to manipulate the Court by planting a suggestion that the Court should ignore proper proceedings and move immediately to a Rule 16 Conference or Discovery without wanting to follow protocol that was already set out by the Court. They probably think that by doing so they can deny CIG the chance to file a MtD against their Second Amended Complaint while they are still in the pleading stage. However, it seems CIG's own lawyers already expected such a dick move from Skadden as they sent in their own notice a day later reprimanding Skadden for not wanting to follow proper procedures. Skadden really wants to rush into Discovery (because they likely don't have any real evidence to back up their accusations). In my opinion this is all part of their modus operandi where they aim to cause as much damage to their opponent's workflow during Discovery as possible so they can then bully them into paying a massive settlement just to have it all go away (because Skadden are experts when it comes to bullying opponents into paying settlements). 😠 https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdf

The judge has ruled on the MtD https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_al MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE [Doc # 20-3] by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Therefore, the MTD's request to strike is DENIED. In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the MTD. (See order for details.) (kti) https://www.docdroid.net/K7ugdJo/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp-et-al-cacdce-17-08937-00380.pdf Lawyers like Lior Leser and Leonard French already expected the lawsuit was not going to be dismissed entirely but portions of it were. Now there's a TON of smaller points granted or denied in the document and I can't wrap my head around it all. So I'll only post the Conclusion So it would appear that CryTek's claim of "you can only ever use CryEngine and nothing else" was removed as was their attempt at getting punitive damages (the big monies) at point 5. Lior Leser has announced that he's working on a video about this latest development and I am very happy that he's going to share his opinion as he understands all this legal mumbo-jumbo and can explain what this all means. To me (someone with zero legal knowledge) it seems that CryTek's claim of Breach of Contract regarding the 'You can't use any other engine waah waah' has been struck and CryTek are also not allowed punitive damages (the big bags of monies) because California law does not permit recovery of punitive damages for breach of contract claims. So it seems that at most CryTek might get statutory compensation (for a $2.1M contract) if they actually win. However from reading the PDF the following quote caught my attention "While it is unlikely that Crytek ultimately will recover statutory damages based on the alleged infringing conduct in the FAC, the Court is reluctant to foreclose the possibility at the pleading stage.". I will upload the video from Lior Leser once it is available but here's a video from BoredGamer where he goes over it in the meantime

Yeah, or this 'new' Picard might turn out to be some 'women's rights' activist while Spock is now a transgender soyboy who lost his logic.

I honestly have no idea and personally believe it was just another case of some trolls/haters desperately trying to find something to fill their 'drama of the month' slot.

In response to (imo pointless drama about) the removal of the UEC cap, Chris Roberts has chimed in on the matter UEC Recently a few people have voiced their concerns about the removal of the player UEC wallet cap that came with the release of Star Citizen Alpha 3.2. This was done to help smooth over the transition to an in-game economy and to give people that had purchased game items through the now-defunct Voyager Direct web store the ability to ‘melt’ them back for UEC, so they can repurchase new items in-game. As we are going to be rebalancing the pricing and economy as we expand the game, and as we currently reset everyone’s accounts when we release a new patch, we felt it would be unfair to force people to keep items they may have bought at a radically different price. This would have happened if we’d kept the overall hard cap on UEC as many players had amassed a lot more than 150,000 UEC worth of items. We still limit the maximum purchasing to 25,000 UEC a day, but we felt that removing the cap was the right call, especially as with every persistent database reset we need to refund players the UEC they have purchased with money and used to buy in-game items. It’s one thing to lose an item due to gameplay, but it’s a complete other thing to have your game account forcibly reset with each new patch, losing all the items you paid actual money for. Putting aside the puzzle of why some people don’t have a problem with stockpiling ships or items but a player having more than 150,000 UEC is game breaking, I think it may be useful to revisit Star Citizen’s economic model. Developing and operating a game of Star Citizen’s ambition is expensive. From day one of the campaign we’ve been quite clear on the economic model for Star Citizen, which is to not require a subscription like many MMOs, but instead rely on sales of initial game packages and in-game money to fund development and online running costs. To ensure money isn’t a deciding factor in progression, the core principle that the game follows is that everything you can obtain with real money, outside of your initial game package, can also be earned in game via normal and fun gameplay. There will also be plenty of things that can only be earned by playing. There are two types of resource players have that they can contribute to Star Citizen to make it better: time and money. A player that has lots of time but only backed for the basic game helps out by playing the game, giving feedback, and assisting new players. On the flip side, if a player has a family and a demanding job and only has four hours to game a week but wants to spend some money to shortcut the time investment they would need to purchase a new ship, what’s wrong with that? They are helping fund the ongoing development and running costs of the game, which benefits everyone. The exact same ship can be earned through pure gameplay without having to spend any money and the backer that has plenty of time is likely to be better at dogfighting and FPS gameplay after playing more hours to earn the ship. I don’t want to penalize either type of backer; I want them both to have fun. People should not feel disadvantaged because they don’t have time, nor should they feel disadvantaged if they don’t have money. I want our tent to be large and encompass all types of players with varied skill sets, time, and money. This was the economic approach I proposed out when I first pitched Star Citizen because it is the model as a player I prefer. I don’t like to have to pay a subscription just to play and I hate when things are deliberately locked behind a paywall, but as someone that doesn’t have twenty hours a week to dedicate to building up my character or possessions, I appreciate the option to get a head start if I’m willing to pay a little extra. Some people are worried that they will be disadvantaged when the game starts for ‘real’ compared to players that have stockpiled ships or UEC. This has been a debate on the forums since the project started, but this is not a concern for me as I know what the game will be and I know how we’re designing it. There will always be some players that have more than others, regardless of whether they’ve spent more or played more, because people start at different times and play at different paces. This is the nature of persistent MMOs. Star Citizen isn’t some race to the top; it’s not like Highlander where “There can only be one!” It is an open-ended Persistent Universe Sandbox that doesn’t have an end game or a specific win-state. We are building it to cater to players of all skill levels, that prefer PvE or PvP, that like to play solo or in a group or a large organization, that want to pursue various professions, some peaceful and some combat orientated. This is the core philosophy of Star Citizen; there isn’t one path, nor is there one way to have fun. This may be a foreign concept to gamers as the majority of games are about winning and losing, but Star Citizen isn’t a normal game. It’s a First Person Universe that allows you to live a virtual life in a compelling futuristic setting. You win by having fun, and fun is different things to different people. See you in the ‘Verse! Chris Roberts

No worries. It's an easy mistake to make. Fortunately it is also easy to fix. What I personally would do is just 'melt' (Exchange For Store Credit) your standalone ship and the Squadron 42 addon. That way your account will receive Store Credit (you'll probably end up with $45+$60=$105 Credit) which you can then use to buy a different package which will not only cost less but also contains more and may even leave you with some spare credit to boot (see below). So no need to spend even more money just to get access to Star Citizen. The image below shows the 'Exchange' button. And in the Billing section on your account you can see the amount of Store Credit available once you've melted something. You can melt your items by going here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/account/pledges Click on the item you want to turn into Store Credit, then the 'Exchange' button, and confirm that you want to convert it to Store Credit. Do the same with your other item and after exchanging both items for Store Credit you can then put the package from the link below in your shopping cart and pay with store credit instead: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Packages/Mustang-Alpha-Star-Citizen-Squadron-42-Combo-Feb2018 The package in the link contains both Star Citizen and Squadron 42 access for $65 (store credit). In order to use the store credit to pay for your purchase simply click on 'Credits & Coupon' at the billing screen, enter 65.00, and Apply. That way $65 of your Store Credit will be applied to your purchase so you won't have to pay with any real money. Any spare Store Credit you might have left afterwards can then be used to upgrade the Mustang inside the package back to an Avenger (or other ship) if you want (personally I would suggest getting the Avenger Titan variant instead of the Stalker). You can get an Avenger upgrade token for $20 by getting this upgrade (and pay for it with store credit again): https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Upgrades/Mustang-Alpha-To-Avenger-Titan-Upgrade Once you have the Avenger upgrade token, go to My Hangar again and click 'Apply Upgrade' to turn your Mustang Alpha into an Avenger. Doing this will allow you to get 1 convenient package containing both Star Citizen + Squadron 42 and an Avenger Titan to play with by using a total of $85 in Store Credit (instead of the $105 you likely spent for just Squadron 42 and a standalone Avenger). So in the end you may even have an extra $20 Store Credit available to use on something else (like using it for a standalone speederbike or something so you won't have to pay the full sum). If you need more assistance just let me know as I'm happy to help out where I can

Take a screenshot of the contents in your package and post it here so we can see what package you bought. If you bought the Avenger Stalker Package then you should have access to Star Citizen and it should look something like this: If however you somehow bought a standalone ship by mistake with Squadron 42 added separately, then you wouldn't be able to access Star Citizen (the MMO). In that case there are still ways to get both if you'd like to have both games. If so I can help you with the steps required in getting the package you wanted.

The hangar module can spawn your ship if you select the right dot. For instance if you have an Aurora or Mustang then clicking on any Size 1-2 dot on the landing pad will bring up a menu where you can select that ship which will then spawn for you to check out. However, that is not all there is. If you bought the Star Citizen game package then you should also have access to Crusader (Port Olisar Spaceport) which is the actual alpha game environment. Here's a screenshot:

Well, personally I doubt we'll see many such lawsuits as from what I've seen it's just a tiny number of isolated incidents where someone thought that they could easily win in small claims court simply because they were fooled into believing a couple of haters on their 'refund'-sub with their fake stories.

No no, I didn't mean collective actions as in a group wanting to do a combined lawsuit or anything. I meant 'collective refund' as someone wanting a full refund for many individual purchases that they bought continuously over a period of several years. So yeah, I meant an 'Italian whale' wanting to sue for a refund of everything years later even though they willingly and knowingly kept pledging for things over and over during that time.

Well that makes sense given that he's a US lawyer who was going over the US version of the ToS. Can't really expect him to know the laws and exceptions for every country. But you bring up a good point regardless and I can't wait to see someone from Italy trying to sue CIG for a collective refund of multiple individual purchases (years after the purchases were made) and see how a judge responds to it. Please share the results if something similar ever happens as you're probably better in the loop regarding the laws and rulings in your country than me.

Hmmm, so the 2 medical areas are modular and come standard with the lowest Tier 3 setup (2x3 beds for treating minor injuries). Odd that CIG didn't immediately offer the optional Tier 1 and Tier 2 modules as well. Not so sure about the Tier 3 rooms though as it sound like the beds will have the same effect as ramming a medi-pen into yourself (provided the drones can even get to someone before they bleed out). Guess I'll have to wait for those Tier 1 and Tier 2 modules then and hope they aren't ridiculously expensive as I'd much rather have two Tier 1 rooms with full capabilities over two Tier 3 rooms that won't be much better than giving someone a medi-pen. Anyways, I bought me a Andromeda-to-Medivac CCU so I have the more white version available if I decide to keep it.