Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Toddles

Real Name Toddles   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Kosumo
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Dec 2, 2003, 02:59
Total Comments 2559 (Senior)
User ID 19551
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > Into the Black
5. Re: Into the Black Feb 15, 2018, 01:04 Kosumo
 
Yoloz wrote on Feb 15, 2018, 00:09:
Now that's what I call butt crack

(Normally a lurker but had to create an account just to say that )

Worth it, well done.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
77. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:48 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09:
Wow, you really need to get that sand out of your vagina.

I agree, for now at lest until the next devoice, Chris Roberts does have a Sandi vagina.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
76. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:45 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
The lawsuit was brought in bad faith due to Crytek's dire financial position.

What prof do you have that either the lawsuit was in bad faith (Chris Roberts breaking a contract, like he has in the past is bad faith) or that Crytek is in a dire financial position?

You wishing to believe those things does not make them true.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
So you believe that Crytek's interpretation that CIG should display the CryEngine and Crytek trademarks even after changing engines is a sensible interpretation?

You have that wrong, the GLA states no such thing, you are seeing it that way so as to defend your view that the lawsuit is fibolous (not good).

The GLA state that CIG should include the CryEngine and Crytek trademarks due to the fact that the contract is for CIG to use the CryEngine EXCUSIVLY .... which CIG as now broken by switching engines. There was never going to be a time where Crytek was hoping to have there logos displayed on an engine that was not theirs as that was never going to happen under the GLA.

It's not a sensible interpretation and is not the way that the contract will be interpreted - it's just the way that Chris Roberts cultist are trying to view it to stop their little minds from going snap.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
You believe that because RSI was a signatory on an Autodesk licence the company should be held liable to the rest of the contract it didn't sign?

I believe that Chris Roberts has set up over 17 diffident companies as part of this games development, and that all of them, due to the same company directors and same business operations will be found to be in effect, one and the same.

If RSI is diffirent than CIG, how has it had the right to be disrupting the game client (the pre-alpha tech demo) without a deal with Crytek since it has included the CryEngine?

This is simple semantics that a court will see right through. Also, is RSI the parent company of CIG, if not what is the relationship. Its a very weak point and does nothing to discredit the merit of the claims of the lawsuit. It's purely a "nah, wrong address, I don't have to pay this speeding fine" - of which the legal system then turns around and goes - sorry it was a topographical mistake, here you go, pay this speeding fine instead.

"Nah, Wrong Company" does not in anyways diminish the claims.

Why does Chris Roberts have over 17 companies all for the making of this one game? That's a better question you should be asking yourself. It's the kind of behavior that people do when they are doing dodgy stuff and moving money around to hind what they are really doing with it. (Like hiding your relationship to other executives that you have hired - like your wife.)

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
You believe that Crytek can claim copyright infringement for its engine when the copyright was only filed a year after CIG had changed engines?

I'm not sure about what this point is about, so will offer nothing on it. I would not thinks so though.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
You believe Crytek's assertion that Squadron 42 wasn't licenced to use the engine even though the Game is defined as 'Space Citizen' and Squadron 42 in the second sentence?

You are viewing that as though in the contract they where to separate products, which, at the time of the contract, they where both included in the same purchese of SQ42/Star Citizen - CIG as since made them into two separate games - you can buy only one or the other which is diffent than what was laid out in the GLA where they where both only to be sold togeather.

Do you not understand it that way? It says "and" not "or".

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
You think Crytek's claim that Seciton 2.4 restricts CIG from using any other engine rather than the common sense interpretation that it restricts CIG from relicensing CryEngine?

This is the real meat of the whole lawsuit don't you agree?

I do believe that Crytek had the understanding that CIG would make the game using ONLY the CryEngine and this is why Crytek gave CIG a very cheap fee to use it and also why they (Crytek done this, not Chris Roberts) made the original demos and promotional video for Chris Roberts.

This is why this needs to go to court and have a Judge and Jury look at all the evidence (emails around the time of the GLA signing and the likes) to decide what they view the intent of the contract was and then weight that against the actions that CIG/RSI/Chris Roberts as taken since it was signed.

To dismiss outright and then slander Crytek as having a lawsuit without merit and in bad faith is very much telling how you have been cought very deep in the Cult of Christ Roberts and can not see how maybe he has fucked up yet again.

Anyway, we will soon see on the 9th of Feb if you are right and a Judge grants the motion to dismiss. If I was you, I would try to prepare myself for that not to happen.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
67. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 15:56 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 18:13:
However, the lawyers who have examined the case have no bias towards CIG; their opinion is that Crytek has a weak case and concealed evidence from the court to give the impression it had a stronger case.

.......

Just as I thought. You can't point to any legitimate claims Crytek makes because there aren't any.

.....

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you were hoisted by your own petard.

First off, why are you continuing to try to make out that Crytek concealed, decieved or mislead the court? Did you think that they where going to try to go though the whole court case without every showing the GLA?

You know, maybe they choose not to attach the GLA in the first filing that was to be placed in the public domain due to the fact that it also contained confidential information, such as the value of the deals done. I'm am sure they would have preferred to have submitted in to the Judge/Court under seal like most sesitave contracts are. That's how those thing are often done.

The GLA also supports their claims in any but the most dumbest readings.

Your "there aren't any" is also dumb, you claim that as a fact but it is yet to be proven. You should wait until the motion to dismiss as been granted before saying such things else they come back to hoist you by your own petard.

I can tell you one thing that is a fact in all this, Chris Roberts has a track record of lying, misleading and seeking to deceive and also of breaking contracts, to which Kevin Costner took his company to court and won millions of dollars in damages from.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
41. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 06:07 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:51:
Kosumo wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 06:02:
I'd like to see Ortwins wavier, while CIG attached the GLA to a public filing, they did not attach that wavier.
It doesn't matter because Crytek removed that allegation in the FAC (First Amended Complaint). Crytek made a baseless and spiteful accusation, which it was forced to retract. Really it speaks to the lack of merit in the lawsuit when Crytek can't get even basic things like that right, instead deciding to make a personal attack against the lawyer in question (a former employee no less).

So the rumor that in the wavier he did not state that he had a finical interest in RSI/CIG while representing them in the making of the contract while dealing with a company whom he had already represented does not worry you? That's bad lawyering 101 right there. (Ok, theritical, lets just say that is true, what's your view on that? - just go with that, on the chance that it's real. Are you good with that?)

CIG could settle that by putting out the wavier so we could all know for sure.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
38. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 23:06 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 17:45:
There's no way that Crytek can afford a protracted and expensive legal battle. The company struggles to even pay its staff, so that's not an option. It will either push for a quick settlement or withdraw the lawsuit to avoid the expense.

You wish but I think this maybe of some interest to you and your spreading of that false narrative.

$500 million dollars to invested in Crytek.

I'm sure Chris Roberts found that interesting as he thought he would avoid this lawsuit based on the fact that Crytek was about to fold when he stopped honoring his side of the deal.

Opps, Chris boo booed again.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
26. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 06:02 Kosumo
 
Peeeling wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 05:15:
Might just be me, but Crytek's interpretation of 'exclusively' doesn't seem all that absurd. Discounting the license fee in exchange for a promise to use their engine and no other for a specific title sounds like a pretty reasonable mutual back-scratching arrangement.

That's me too. This is going to trial.

I'd like to see Ortwins wavier, while CIG attached the GLA to a public filing, they did not attach that wavier.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit
9. Re: More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Jan 20, 2018, 16:59 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 20, 2018, 16:49:
Renegades Hang wrote on Jan 20, 2018, 15:00:
That video was made before Cryteks devastating response. It's not frivolous as they state because first of all, CIG didn't even attempt to defend themselves against the Bugsmashers & Facewear source code exposure allegations, nor the lack of promised bug fixes allegation, therefore the case cant be dismissed because of that alone.
Crytek's 'devastating' response was to simply restate the original claims, which are easily invalidated by the GLA released by CIG. The Bugsmashers & Faceware claim is without merit due to CIG having moved on to the Lumberyard engine. As for ongoing bug fixes, there was no timeframe specified and CIG has now changed engines to Lumberyard meaning the GLA has no validity.

Renegades Hang wrote on Jan 20, 2018, 15:00:
Crytek quotes the contract stating that the license is only for Star Citizen and Squadron 42 if they are sold together as one game and Squdron 42 is a feature of Star Citizen ("The Game" not "The Games") and isn't for, as the contract states, "any content being sold and marketed separately". Is Squadron 42 now being sold and marketed separately? You bet your ass it is.
CIG released the GLA and it had a specific provision for Squadron 42. Plus if they're no longer using the engine they can't be in breach of the contract.

Renegades Hang wrote on Jan 20, 2018, 15:00:
Finally, even if the court decides that CIG could switch to a different engine, the contract is still in effect. They state that in Section 2.4 CIG isnt allowed to promote any engine other than Cry's and that, "By its terms, Section 2.4 remains in effect for two years after the termination of the GLA (an event that has not yet occurred.)"
No. Section 2.4 states that CIG can't take the engine and license it to other companies - note the term 'in the business of'. It doesn't state that CIG can't license another engine and it's telling that Crytek doesn't list that clause in this response.

The exact language is: During the Term of the License, or any renewals thereof, and for a period of two years thereafter, Licensee, its principals, and Affiliates shall not directly or indirectly engage in the business of designing, developing, creating, supporting, maintaining, promoting, selling or licensing (directly or indirectly) any game engine or middleware which compete with CryEngine.

Crytek's claims do not stand up to scrutiny, something that has been validated by numerous legal experts who have looked in the details. There are basic mistakes, like listing Roberts Space Industries as the developer, and contradictory claims (e.g. that CIG is no longer using the engine yet also claiming CIG is using CryEngine for both Star Citizen and Squadron 42).

There's a reason that Crytek didn't release the GLA when it issued the lawsuit and that's because it easily invalidates most of the claims. Crytek is trying this as a last desperate measure before being declared bankrupt, with the company hemorrhaging employees and being unable to pay those still working there. It already had to sell off Homefront Revolution to Koch Media and do a deal with Amazon to create the Lumberyard spinoff due to its dire finances.

You are a fool who has given to much money to a conman in whom you still believe in his snake oil.

You have said how even you do not think they delivered on what you expected of them last year yet here you are, full cultist, supporting them when they are clearly wrong.

They have broken a contract - and that is no ones fault but their own.

They will have to pay.

Crytek made the kickstarter video yet Chris as try to shit on them yet as only shitted on his own feet.

There is a reason he has not made any video games in coming up to twenty years!

Chris Roberts is a well documented liar.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit
8. Re: More on Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Jan 20, 2018, 16:50 Kosumo
 
Chris Roberts is a no talent scummy money hunger cunt has as been showen many times.

I can only hope that him living on food stamps may help his weight issue.

2018 - Sandi get her second devoice from him.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 3.1 in March
46. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 3.1 in March Jan 9, 2018, 14:31 Kosumo
 
We're going to be adding content dynamically to the universe. I'm not interested in having yearly updates. We'll have a team of people that are adding content on a weekly, every two weeks basis. So you start in this system and start in this game, and it's got fifty star systems for instance... Two weeks in and a jump point is discovered for another system and someone navigates it, and bam we've got a 51st system... and so on.
- Chris Roberts

Scummy inept liar.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 3.1 in March
9. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 3.1 in March Jan 6, 2018, 14:20 Kosumo
 
Hahahahahahha AHhahhahah Hahhahahah

Chris Roberts is a clown and this is funny.

He does have a cult though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Gameplay Video
47. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Gameplay Video Dec 26, 2017, 00:15 Kosumo
 
He is lying.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Squadron 42 Gameplay Video
45. Re: Star Citizen Squadron 42 Gameplay Video Dec 25, 2017, 16:42 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 25, 2017, 12:55:
With a decent rig and fresh server you can already get 80fps+ in Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 and there's a lot more optimisation to come.

That's just lies.

You show me a video of someone having 50fps+ for five minutes on a live server while actively "playing" the "game" and I'll apologize, other wise you are just a cultist lying because you believe in the faith of Chris Roberts.

Your lies could cost other people money and that's wrong. You should feel shame.

Even the liar Chris Roberts admits the frame rate is shit (but blames the players for it) ------> Chris Roberts on performace
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 All Backers Test
28. Re: Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 All Backers Test Dec 24, 2017, 03:22 Kosumo
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 23, 2017, 11:42:
El Pit wrote on Dec 23, 2017, 11:20:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 23, 2017, 10:31:
El Pit wrote on Dec 23, 2017, 10:09:
SQ42 has been released? Sorry, I didn't know. When did this happen?
Your reading comprehension is frankly pathetic. This is about Star Citizen, not Squadron 42. If you're going to troll you need to put a lot more effort in.

Sorry, my bad. So the game Star Citizen has been released and is getting updates? When did they release the final version? Where can I buy and download it? It seems it is not availabe at CIG - can you help me out with some info? Thanks.

Merry Christmas and lots of love to you, too!
Sincerest apologies. I assumed you were being sarcastic - a lot of the comments around here are negative. Squadron 42 and Star Citizen were originally bundled together but are now sold separately. Currently Star Citizen is in alpha testing and this is the latest version of that. Squadron 42 was due to be released several years ago but that has been delayed to increase its scope - for instance, originally it was not going to include the planetary tech see in the recent demo.

You can find out more here, check out Star Citizen's latest presentation here and Squadron 42 here. In order to buy both bundled together you can get a combo pack like this one.

Just be advised that the game is still years away from being released and the current build is lacking most of the core gameplay. There is still a long way to go in terms of optimisations, as the game is going to support Vulkan (a multi-platform competitor to DX12). Currently you can get 60-80fps on a good day but it's typically closer to 30fps, which isn't as enjoyable.

Merry Christmas to you.

You can also spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on space ships/land claims/tanks for this unfinished, still years away from being released, game.

You will probably want too as it will give you a head start to want ever you want to do in the game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks
40. Re: Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks Dec 21, 2017, 15:04 Kosumo
 
HAHHAHA 30 mins before their year end Holiday Stream, they delay it by 24 hours!

Total clowns running this mismanaged project.

Oh well, you can always watch last years amateur hour live stream (which RSI removed their copy from the web)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg_ZcA1dwu0
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks
5. Re: Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks Dec 20, 2017, 19:32 Kosumo
 
$725 DLC - but guys, guys, this is not pay to win.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks
3. Re: Squadron 42 Specs and Trailer; Star Citizen Selling Tanks Dec 20, 2017, 19:31 Kosumo
 
I'm sure Squadron 42 and Star Citizen will tank, tank hard.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crytek Suing Cloud Imperium
43. Re: Crytek Suing Cloud Imperium Dec 18, 2017, 03:03 Kosumo
 
Yeah, totally, but what about Chris Robert breaking his contacted with Crytek who help him get his kickstarter going?

That sounds to me like the kind of stand up guy that Chris is.

Hope this goes to court so we can see what as really happened.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crytek Suing Cloud Imperium
19. Re: Crytek Suing Cloud Imperium Dec 13, 2017, 23:28 Kosumo
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Dec 13, 2017, 23:12:
Whoever made that original engine contract must have been a fucking idiot if they did actually sign a "we don't change engine" clause.

You are talking about Ortwin and Chris "I married a tickle porn actress" Roberts.

He has not made a computer (or any that I know of) game in 20 years.

Wing Commander The Movie was a totally flop - he directed it.

He was black listed in Hollywood due to lawsuits.

Anyone who has given him money in the last 15 years as regreated it.

He lies all the time.

He deserves what is coming.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
3. Re: etc., etc. Dec 13, 2017, 20:21 Kosumo
 
He has got just what anyone else who every thought Chris Roberts was trustable got .... FUCKED

Chris Roberts is a no talent, has been hack, who lies ... all the time.

Anyone who ever gave him money deserves to lose it (Chris does not deserve it though).

Mae Demming.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2559 Comments. 128 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo