Jump to content
  • Similar Content

    • By Foxzer Jaxzon
      So I posted an idea for a new defense corvette class on starcitizen forum as I would love to see a more dedicated support ship military style, in the size of a polaris or carrack.
      Polaris = Offensive military corvette
      Carrack = Exploration capital ship
      Guardian = Defensive/Support military corvette (new idea)
      please give feedback, here is the link my fellow imps
      https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/61894/thread/guardian-class-new-ship-idea
    • By Gremlich
       
      and some highlights:
      Refutation of CryTek's Claims
       
      Claim: CIG was only given permission to make "the game" with CryEngine, selling SQ42 standalone is in violation of this.
      Defense: The GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen).
      Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used.
       
      Claim: CIG violated the GLA by switching from CryEngine to Lumberyard, they are only allowed to "exclusively" use CryEngine.
      Defense: The GLA says they are given "exclusive rights to use CryEngine" and the right "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the game". The well-established meaning of this wording is that the right is given only to them (and those subcontracted within the terms), not that they are only allowed to use CryEngine.
       
      Claim: CIG is no longer displaying CryTek copyright notices in game, in violation of the GLA.
      Defense: This obligation only applies if CIG is using CryEngine, which they are not.
       
      Claim: Ortwin was employed by CryTek prior to becoming CIG's attorney and co-founder so he had a conflict of interest when negotiating the contract.
      Defense: Ortwin received a signed waiver from CryTek dismissing any conflict of interest.
       
      Claim: Confidential source code was shown on Bugsmashers and disclosed to FaceWare in violation of the GLA.
      Defense: No defense provided, though FaceWare was after the switch to Lumberyard.
       
      Claim: CIG was required to provide any bugfixes they developed for CryEngine up until launch.
      Defense: No defense provided.
       
      Additional Statements
      The GLA prohibits either party from seeking any damages from one another "except for intentional acts or omissions or gross negligent acts".
      CIG, not RSI, is the signatory of the GLA, so CryTek committed a legal blunder by pursuing RSI rather than CIG in a number of claims.
      CIG seeks to have the entire complaint dismissed with prejudice (barring any further related action) on the grounds that none of the complaints are sufficient.
    • By kensiko
      If you want to have a ship that is included in a package of Optane drive, I'm willing to buy the optane. I'm in Canada.
    • By Gremlich
      CIG cancelled due to technical difficulties. will show tomorrow, 22 Dec.
      I cannot defend them in public over this after they've had a literal freaking year to get their shit together.
    • By Donut
      Apparently it seems that Crytek wants a piece of the cake after the success CIG brought with using the founding elements of CryEngine. They now are suing for copyright infringement. I feel like this is a last dick move to try and save themselves before they finally go under.
       
      https://www.scribd.com/document/367101474/Crytek-v-CIG

×