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:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Jonas Taylor

Real Name Jonas Taylor   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname theyarecomingforyou
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Apr 8, 2005, 11:25
Total Comments 6745 (Guru)
User ID 22891
 
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 > Morning Mobilization
8. Re: Morning Mobilization Jan 31, 2018, 18:24 theyarecomingforyou
 
I've never used Bixby and I can't see any reason why I would. Even the voice assistant, the only aspect that could potentially have some value, was immediately disabled when it kept falsely triggering.

Foldable displays, on the otherhand, could be a big deal if the implementation is decent.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
72. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:09 theyarecomingforyou
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 17:45:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
Oh, and here's a further legal analysis of CIG's position by a technology attorney. SPOILER: Crytek's claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
Another unbiased Actual Attorney says that Crytek's claims are bumpkis.
Frankly I'm shocked.

I know, right! It's almost like Crytek's case is baseless.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
71. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:09 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 17:50:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 14:32:

Translation: I'm too lazy to have an opinion but I'll throw my toys out of the pram if anyone else has an opinion.

This is precious now.

"Waaah. You won't discuss this with me, so I'll stomp my feet!!! You are only discuss what -I- want to talk about and not what you are talking about." - You, paraphrased.


LOL. Reading comprehension kid (I'm beginning to understand you simply refuse to read as it doesn't fit your argument, but I'll keep trying!!) , I know its some thing you've displayed you struggle with. You're having an argument by your self, about why I won't argue with you. This is even sadder them your non stop defense of CIG. But way more entertaining.

lol.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 12:59:
I admitted I I was wrong to make legal conclusions without all the facts. I apologize for acting like a child and quoting things you did not say. My bad.


THANK you, that's all I asked.

Cause that's how you want to play... right ?? lol, What a child. No, I will not discuss this case with you. Keep crying abourt that. You guys are absolute fools for thinkiong you know whats going on with this case with the limited infornation you have.

You've proven you're only going to argue and bitch about things I didn't say or intend to respond to, continue to show you're a child. No sweat off my back.
Wow, you really need to get that sand out of your vagina. I produced a reasoned justification for why Crytek's claim doesn't have merit; you rolled around like a one legged leper in an industrial tumble dryer.

PS - I tried to look up the word 'thinkiong' but all I could find was a Facebook page for some random guy in Malaysia.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
68. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 16:27 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 15:56:
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?
Crytek concealed the GLA, including only brief quotes that were grossly out of context. The intent was to force publicly shame CIG and force the company to settle to avoid a costly court case. That's why the baseless claim of conflict of interest was alleged and then withdrawn when CIG revealed it had a signed waiver. The lawsuit was brought in bad faith due to Crytek's dire financial position.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 15:56:
The GLA also supports their claims in any but the most dumbest readings.
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 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? You believe that Crytek can claim copyright infringement for its engine when the copyright was only filed a year after CIG had changed engines? 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 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?

Crytek's claims do not withstand common sense interpretation and established legal precedent. Your hatred of CIG and Chris Roberts is clouding your objectivity. If Crytek has such strong claims then please point out what you feel are their strongest claims and why the points I have raised don't address them.

Oh, and here's a further legal analysis of CIG's position by a technology attorney. SPOILER: Crytek's claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
66. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 14:32 theyarecomingforyou
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 12:10:
theyarecomingforyou, you must have a household full of small children because you have a lot of patience.
Yeah. I've got a three year old, so I'm used to dealing with children.

Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 12:59:
I haven't spend any energy or time on the specifics of this case.
Translation: I'm too lazy to have an opinion but I'll throw my toys out of the pram if anyone else has an opinion.

Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 12:59:
I admitted I was a troll
I know you did.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
62. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 11:47 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 18:31:
> can't even point to a single instance where you think Crytek may have a legitimate point.

Well, duh. That's the point of being A) neutral and B) not getting involved in any way with this case. I have stated MULTIPLE times (comprehension.) I am not interested in the specifics on this case (or anything CIG or Crytek [after Crysis 1] does.)
For someone who's not interested in the specifics you sure have expended a lot of time and energy commenting on the matter. And despite your claims that you are neutral in this discussion all your comments have been critical of CIG and supportive of Crytek REGARDLESS of the evidence presented. You claim to not want to get involved yet throw a fit every time someone presents evidence highlighting Crytek's lies and misdirections.

Your position can be summed up as: I don't have a position... but don't you dare say anything bad about Crytek.

Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 18:31:
I take pleasure in watching those already wound up (such as those that come running to defend CIG, [their sport team, home town, countries etc...]) continue to wind themselves up, getting emotional about stuff that is hilarious to get worked up about.
As I said, a troll.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
59. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 18:13 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:56:
As I've said multiple times (back to reading comprehension) I don't have a dog or opinion in this fight. I don't care who wins, or the merits of this case. I am merely laughing at the fact you guys have, and continue to speak as if you know whats going on.

You are making conclusions (not even assumptions at this point) based off partial evidence, presented by those with a clear bias towards CIG.
If CIG broke a contract it signed it should be held accountable. I have no issue with that. 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. We'll soon see what claims, if any, survive the motion to dismiss.

Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:56:
Oh heavens no, I am just going to laugh at the far reaching conclusions from some folk. I don't think i'll be taking your advice.
Just as I thought. You can't point to any legitimate claims Crytek makes because there aren't any. Instead you admit you just like trolling people. You claim to be a neutral observer yet can't even point to a single instance where you think Crytek may have a legitimate point.

At least you admit you're a troll. You have nothing to bring to the conversation, you just take pleasure in winding other people up. It really doesn't bother me. I will always attempt to make a reasoned point, even when people are as unreasonable as you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you were hoisted by your own petard.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
57. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 17:43 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:03:
None of which you've posted has been tested in court, and therefor is an opinion you (and others) are trying to represent as fact. Not even your opinion, i'll add, just someone elses you're attempting to rely on to assert your claims. Your inexperience leads you to believe this is some sort of house of cards, where if 1 claim is proven false the rest fall. This is not how it works.
Thank you Captain Obvious™! Of course a lawsuit that has not yet reached court hasn't been tested in court. The issue at hand is the motion to dismiss, which may mean the case doesn't even make it that far. It isn't that it's a house of cards - the issue is that each claim has been demolished by the evidence provided by CIG and legal experts that have looked at the case concur. The main claims alleged by Crytek are easily dismissed by the GLA, which Crytek concealed from the court. It's possible a few of the allegations make it as far as court but based on the contract they don't have any claim for damages and Crytek's case is weak.

So please, what claim of Crytek's is it that you feels stands up to scrutiny. You've been extremely vague in everything you've said. Put up or shut up.

Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:03:
I don't have moral superiority. Nor do I pretend to. I just LOVE laugh at the asinine though of people who think they can draw conclusions with partial evidence.
We don't have the full evidence, therefore we're commenting on the available evidence. If you don't want to comment on partial evidence then why are you even commenting on here? If Crytek had a compelling case to make against CIG it would have done so in the lawsuit.

Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:03:
God bless CIGs white knights. The entertainment never ceases.
Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you is biased. Brilliant defence. It's convenient how nobody is allowed to disagree with you.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
51. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 16:28 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 15:08:
I suppose it's my fault for looking for logic on a forum though. My bad gents! Away you go with your youtube backed legal conclusions!
You just can't help insulting everyone around you, pretending you have moral superiority whilst engaging in the very behaviour you deride.

Crytek misled the courts in its lawsuit. It stated CIG didn't have the right to use CryEngine for Squadron 42 when the GLA, released by CIG, shows it expressly listed in the opening statements. The contract literally defines 'the Game' as Squadron 42 and Star Citizen. This is covered by a video over on YouTuber Law. One doesn't need to be a legal expert to see the glaring issues with the lawsuit.

You talk about logic yet display none yourself.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
45. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 13:26 theyarecomingforyou
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 12:52:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 11:20:
Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 06:36:
continuous never-ending derpage
Obvious troll is obvious.
I can't believe that you're just now figuring that out.
I like to give the benefit of the doubt where possible.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer
42. Re: Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer Jan 30, 2018, 11:56 theyarecomingforyou
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Bullshit. They were boasting as early as 2013 that they had 200 - 300 people (including 3rd parties like Turbulent obviously) working on the game. It did not take "years".
CIG Austin and LA ramped up very quickly in early 2013 with Foundry 42 following later in the same year and also launching like a rocket in terms of headcount.
Bullshit. CIG had 48 employees as of October 2013, expanding to 161 by October 2014, 258 by October 2015 and 363 by October 2016.

It takes time to develop the metrics and infrastructure to develop content efficiently. A lot of the early content that was outsourced, like Star Marine with Illfonic, was of poor quality and significantly delayed. In fact much of the content was made to the wrong metrics and had to be largely scrapped. CIG is of course to blame for not properly overseeing the content but the core management structure simply wasn't in place back then.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Completely irregardless of any of that, they released a Squadron 42 trailer at CitizenCon in 2015, i.e. when they were already long since in FULL production, that had a big fat "2016" at the end.
Yes, the game has been delayed. We're all aware of that.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
Squadron 42 not making it even in 2018, while a new 2017 feature for the PU like the land rush is getting priority treatment for an early release this year, is all you need to know about CIG's priorities and their project management "skills" (LOL).
How can anyone with even a tiny tad fraction of project management abilities be off by 2+ years? Impossible unless you are either totally incompetent or intentionally defrauding your audience or both...
There were delays with the core technology required and the decision was made to incorporate procedural planets into the campaign, which is a feature still undergoing a lot of work. As for the land claims in Star Citizen, I agree they're bullshit. Just because I support the game doesn't mean I approve of every decision made.

CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 10:07:
If they would have ever focused on Squadron 42, we'd have long since finished playing it. Fuck, they've been talking about "reworking" the Bengal carrier literally since 2012.
If the scope of the game had been restricted then we could have had the game already but it wouldn't be the same game we're getting now. Delaying the game to improve the quality and scope is a worthwhile compromise to many but obviously there will be those that disagree.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer
41. Re: Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer Jan 30, 2018, 11:37 theyarecomingforyou
 
mram wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:04:
It is amazingly true that this company spends far far FAR too much time in developing advertisements, updates, plans, schedules, discussions, bugfix videos, tours, etc than actually developing the game.

There are companies that don't show you anything and then magically a game just shows up. Then there's RSI where you hear tons about development and after a few years ... you keep hearing tons about development.

I've not said this much but I wish that they would just shut the hell up and finish development. Literally.
1) The community content was promised in the original crowdfunding pledge
2) It's how the community keeps track of the game and holds CIG accountable
3) Community content is funded through a separate subscription and does NOT come from pledges towards the game
4) It's how CIG raises money to develop the game because it doesn't have a traditional publisher to rely on

If you don't want to hear about the game then stop reading articles and watching videos about it. Nobody is forcing you to follow the game.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
43. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 11:20 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kosumo wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 06:07:
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?
You are SERIOUSLY misinformed. Ortwin Freyermuth, the lawyer in question, was a founding member of CIG and received a waiver signed by both parties due to the potential conflict of interest. Of course he had a financial interest in CIG. Crytek withdrew the claim because it was baseless and spiteful - if even the slightest due diligence had been applied in constructing the lawsuit the claim would never have been included.

CIG doesn't need to publish the waiver because Crytek retracted the claim in the FAC (First Amended Complaint), meaning that it is no longer part of the lawsuit.

Dacron wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 06:36:
I forget though, you know everything about Crytek based off a few assumptions. You know they need cash. So of course they couldn't have an agreement with a law firm, that when a winnable case based off a contractual breach happens they respond based off past agreements/ventures... Or that a firm is already on retainer, as is standard practice to fund them well in advance... or that the firm sees such strong merit in this case they are doing it solely on contingency, knowing CIG is still worth money even broke with no more donations when it's sold to Microsoft to become freelancer 2.0.... or any number of possible situations, that are now playing out that nobody is privy to.
It's funny how you argue my opinion is worthless because I cannot possibly know everything about Crytek whilst making baseless accusations about CIG's financial position and the nature of the lawsuit. Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
40. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 01:54 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kosumo wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 23:06:
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.
The details of that deal are murky but likely it's just a tax break to keep open Crytek Istanbul, which was due to be axed in an announcement earlier that month. It doesn't mean the company is in decent financial shape.

Dacron wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 23:35:
Of course. If they can't pay their front-line staff it must mean they don't have a separate legal fund, legal agreement, lawyer on retainer, or any number of other agreements in place.

You guys KNOW an awful lot for not being privy to internal details. Probably spend your late nights hacking their financials and their lawyers' firms to be able to give great predictions.
Good grief, you're utterly unreasonable. If a company repeatedly can't afford to pay its staff then it's reasonable to infer it's in bad financial shape. That would suggest it doesn't have the money to fight a protracted legal battle based on flimsy allegations. It's Occam's razor - it's more logical the company is in financial difficulty due to it axing studios and being unable to pay staff than it having a secret miracle fund that will support an expensive and protracted legal battle.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
37. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 17:45 theyarecomingforyou
 
Hanneth wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:32:
I agree theyarecomingforyou about the case not being strong. The only problem being that this is a court action in the US, and as we have seen by cases like SCO vs IBM, these things can get drawn out for years. The SCO case going on 15 years now.
The one bit of hope is that CIG is getting sued in California, instead of Texas. Which I find a bit surprising as CIG's original office is in Texas and the Texas court is more likely to draw this out. California is more likely to actually take a look at the documents as presented.
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.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
33. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 13:15 theyarecomingforyou
 
Hanneth wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 12:51:
We only know pieces of information about Crytek's financials and current owned IP, but what we do know is in 2013 Crytek was unable to make payroll multiple times for 1 to 2 months. This lead to many lead devs quitting their jobs. Some of these people started the Frankfurt RSI Studio. In 2013 CIG and Crytek renegotiated their deal. According to ex-Crytek employees it was Crytek that approached CIG to buy a normal GLA for for the price reduced by the amount CIG had already paid. This allegedly allowed Crytek to start paying their employees again.
In 2015 Crytek was having troubles making payroll again. Amazon bought a license to CryEngine 3 for an undisclosed amount. According to at least 4 anonymous employees the deal was for full rights to the CryEngine 3 for $50 to $70 million. Crytek was using the CryEngine 4 at this time.
Reports continued into and through 2016 of employees not being paid for up to 6 months. At the end of 2016 one of the disgruntled accountants said Crytek was $23 million in debt. This was after selling 3 studios, multiple franchise IPs and trying to sell, or close down 3 more. They were trying to go down to 2 offices. Not surprisingly, during these periods of non-payment many more senior developers left the company.

My take, I don't think Crytek is worried about not licensing their engine anymore, I think the financial hardships and lack of skilled developers has long since kept new companies from considering CryEngine.
It's pretty obvious it's a desperate move given Crytek's dire financial predicament. The company has been hemorrhaging staff, with most of their senior staff moving over to CIG. In fact I expect that's largely why CIG opened a studio in Frankfurt, which is where Crytek is located - they were able to poach staff (made easier when they're not being paid by Crytek).

This video contains a decent overview of CIG's motion to dismiss. It's hard to watch that and then claim Crytek has a strong case, though there will be some around here who will claim so.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
31. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 11:51 theyarecomingforyou
 
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).
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
30. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 29, 2018, 11:44 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 18:40:
Offer any opinion you want. It is worth nothing (the nature of unfounded or partially founded opinions). We do not have all the evidence, making opinions worthless in this case. Facts/Opinions based off partial facts aren't facts/opinions worth listening to (or learning from). Opinionate away, no harm in that, I'll just laugh at those making legal conclusions from one sides opinions, and part of the evidence. They might turn out to be right in the end. But to assume so before everything is laid out is asinine and foolish.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were with the Opinion Police™. Thank you for informing us that all opinions are worthless. We will now return to our empty rooms and sit there until you give us permission to offer an opinion.

Cutter wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 21:24:
Ahh I did not know that. I'll take your word for it. I really don't care enough about any of this to be bothered looking myself. I just see a lot of people chiming in without any actual real knowledge about just what their contract stipulates - including me, which is why I haven't made a call one way or t'other, as John Wayne would say.
That's fair enough. I've actually read through the GLA and looked at opinions from legal experts. Of course nobody can definitively state what the outcome will be - that's the point of a trial - but that doesn't mean one can't offer an opinion.

Cutter wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 21:24:
I'm sure there are multiple contracts stipulating different things so again, without knowing it's all just conjecture. It also matters greatly where this is going to be tried as well. Ask anyone who's been sued by a patent troll in east Texas.
The assertions made by Crytek relate to the GLA. However, there may be email chains that offer clarification of specific points that we've not been made aware of, though presumably that's something Crytek would have mentioned by now.

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. CIG got the discount - if they subsequently want to back out of the deal they should at least have offered to buy out the contract.
The issue is how the term is considered in relation to legal norms. Legal experts have pointed out that the exclusive rights were issued under the 'grants' section of the contract rather than 'restrictions', meaning a right to use the engine was granted to CIG rather than an obligation. Even if it was interpretted otherwise it's hard to argue what damages have occurred to Crytek - CIG paid them nearly €2 million for an engine they decided not to use.

CIG didn't ask for its money back or refuse to pay. It simply decided that Lumberyard was a better supported and financially prudent option.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > CIG Responds to Crytek
14. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 28, 2018, 18:28 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 16:30:
Can't wait for the legally inept to say CIG has already won because of this response, or because 1 or 2 lawyers think so as well.

Awfully telling of their educations. Or perspective on history.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. One can look at the evidence and make an educated assessment, especially with the evidence presented by legal experts. Claiming no-one here can offer an opinion unless they're a lawyer is like claiming no-one can criticise Donald Trump because they're not a political scholar. If something looks like shit and smell likes shit then maybe, just maybe, it actually is shit.

Cutter wrote on Jan 28, 2018, 17:40:
It really all comes down to how the original agreement was structured. And since I haven't seen it, nor apparently anyone else except the lawyers and a few execs of both parties no one is really qualified to remark on any of this anyway. It's all just wild conjecture of the 'he said/she said' variety. So without knowing that this all really amounts to much ado about nothing.
Actually, the GLA was included in CIG's motion to dimiss. That's why people are discussing this, because legal experts have actually been offering their opinions and there have been many YouTube videos about it. They all seem to conclude that most of Crytek's claims are demonstrably false but there are a few that can't be resolved by the motion to dismiss.

CIG clearly seems to have the upperhand but trial could reveal information we haven't yet seen. For instance, one would have to look at how Crytek has constructed other contracts and if they were interpretted in the same way. There may also be email chains that clarify particular points in the GLA. One thing that's not in dispute though is that Crytek made numerous basic legal errors in its lawsuit, especially in the original lawsuit prior to amendment.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer
36. Re: Star Citizen Website Relaunches, Offers New Trailer Jan 28, 2018, 07:02 theyarecomingforyou
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 27, 2018, 22:08:
All of the things you mentioned aren't working are things that exist in the PU. SQ 42 is a separate code base since it doesn't need a lot of that stuff. Just because they haven't shown it, doesn't mean it's not done. They'd be careful to either hold things back.
Actually, Squadrton 42 needs all of the things I mentioned. What it doesn't need is any of the networking technology, which is why I didn't mention that.

It's not being developed deliberately slowly. What people overlook is that due to the nature of crowdfunding CIG didn't have any established studios - there were only five employees when it went to Kickstarter. It took years to build up multiple studios around the world and to take on the hundreds of developers they now have. And due to the massive amount of funding raised it was decided to increase the scope and fidelity of the game. Core ships for Squadron 42, like the Idris, have only recently been completed due to their immense scale and we haven't had recent updates on other ships like the larger Bengal Carrier. That's without even taking into account the Vanduul ships, most of which haven't been official demonstrated. The Vanduul Kingship is over 2.5km long.

It took a long time for CIG to even produce a single vertical slice for the game and, as I said before, it was missing any real gameplay. It was great for showing off the environments and atmosphere of the game, as well as the excellent motion capture acting, but no-one can look at that and think CIG is simply holding back the rest of the game. We've yet to see any of the Vanduul—the main antagonists of the campaign—outside of Arena Commander (released three and a half years ago).

To be fair I'd rather they get it right first time than rush it out and permanently damage the reputation of the game. It's already been delayed substantially, they may as well take the time required to do it properly. Star Citizen is different because that will be constantly evolving.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / 32GB DDR4 / GTX 1080 OC
Optane 900P 280G
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6745 Comments. 338 pages. Viewing page 2.
< 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