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:

CIG Responds to Crytek

Crytek to Cloud Imperium Games continue their sparring in court over Crytek's lawsuit claiming that CIG is not honoring their commitment to use and promote CryENGINE in Star Citizen, and that the split of Star Citizen into two separate games further violates their agreements. Cloud Imperium responded, which naturally inspired a reaction from Crytek. Now a new Motion to Dismiss from CIG further states their case. There's a lot to sort through, so thank you to theyarecomingforyou for finding a couple of very pertinent paragraphs to highlight:

"By repeatedly attempting to justify getting waved through Rule 12 by arguing phantom allegations, by proffering absurd interpretations of now-revealed plain contract language, by asserting ever-shifting claims for copyright infringement without identifying the allegedly infringing works, and by seeking remedies that are palpably improper under black letter law (e.g., punitive damages for breach of contract and statutory damages for pre-registration infringement), the opposition demonstrates that both efforts at pleading in this case have been an unmanageable, incoherent mess unworthy of proceeding beyond the pleading stage and all of the attendant time and expense thereafter."

Later they say:

"Crytek’s proffered interpretation — that the word 'exclusively' means that CIG is duty bound to use the Engine no matter what — leads to absurdities. Under Crytek’s construction, CIG agreed to pay Crytek a buyout license fee of €1.8 million for an obligation to use the Engine forever, irrespective of the level of support being provided by Crytek, irrespective of Crytek’s future prospects, and irrespective of better alternatives available in the market. Under Crytek’s construction, CIG remains forever shackled to Crytek’s Engine, even if CIG has reason to believe Crytek is a sinking ship."

View
80 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

80. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 20:05 Dacron
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 19:46:
Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:24:
You're busy trying to convince me CIG has a case. I DON'T CARE.
You: I don't care... and here are twenty posts explaining how much I don't care.

Me: Here's a well reasoned, articulate explanation for why I believe Crytek has a flimsy case.

You: Mummy... he's being mean.

Holy shit. You still do not get it. Have you really come this far with THAT little grasp of my point - the same thing you are trying to argue?? I mean shit, you tried calling me a troll... you were actually just projecting your insecurities ??

Because of that, I'll have to try again. JFC:

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 never said no one could offer an opinion either. I just said they were useless/worthless. And I stand by it, as NO one has access to everything here, or on youtube. Anyone deciding if CIG/Crytek has won/lost already is doing so based off partial information, and their emotions.




From making up lies in quotes to acting like a child. Learn to check your emotions kid. Are you THAT upset over the fact I won't discuss CIG with you that you'd rather stomp your feet and cry than realize what the situation is ?? That's hilarious!!!

As long as it entertains me though, and this does, I'm golden.

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2018, 20:54.
 
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 19:46 theyarecomingforyou
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:24:
You're busy trying to convince me CIG has a case. I DON'T CARE.
You: I don't care... and here are twenty posts explaining how much I don't care.

Me: Here's a well reasoned, articulate explanation for why I believe Crytek has a flimsy case.

You: Mummy... he's being mean.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 19:43 theyarecomingforyou
 
Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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?
Proof? None. Evidence? Crytek is in financial difficulty and desperate for money; the claims don't stand up to scrutiny; legal experts have concluded as much; the GLA was concealed, which debunks most of Crytek's claims.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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.
Actually, it's the way non-partisan legal attorneys interpret it. CIG was granted an exclusive RIGHT to use the engine, not an obligation.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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?
The GLA grants permission for CIG to sublicence the engine (see Section 2.1.2) but not to relicence it competitively. As for the different sub-companies, that's a standard business practice to limit liabilities and qualify for regional tax breaks.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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.
That relates to the allegation that CIG violated copyright by showing Crytek code on Bugsmashers. It turns out Crytek own copyrighted the code in December 2017, just prior to the lawsuit being filed and a year after CIG had already changed engine. Crytek also didn't specify what code was violated, which is essential in a copyright violation claim.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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".
You've misunderstood that section of the GLA. It states "the Game does not include any content being sold and market separately, AND not being accessed through the Star Citizen Game client". Squadron 42 has never been released, therefore it was never not accessed through the Star Citizen Game client. The GLA allows them to be sold marketed separately provided they are distributed through the same client, which was always the intention. So again, Crytek's claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

Kosumo wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:45:
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.
Agreed. This is the main area of contention. Standard legal interpretation for contracts like this is that a right to use the engine is provided by the developer of the engine; it is not an obligation. Of all the claims this seems the most likely to proceed to the next stage should the motion to dismiss fail.
 
Avatar 22891
 
8700K @ 4.9GHz / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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
 
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
 
75. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:41 Dacron
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:40:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09:

PS - I tried to look up the word 'thinkiong' but all I could find was a Facebook page for some random guy in Malaysia.
Major derpage
It means sad troll is sad.

Well that would certainly explain your lack of comprehension of the English language, huh.
 
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:40 RedEye9
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09:

PS - I tried to look up the word 'thinkiong' but all I could find was a Facebook page for some random guy in Malaysia.
It means sad troll is sad.
 
Avatar 58135
 
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 18:24 Dacron
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 17:50:
I look forward to you continuing to try and discuss this case with me, so I can laugh at your inability to read simple English.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09:
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.

Holy shit. You still do not get it. This is a travesty of the education system. I am now certain you cannot comprehend English properly, not joking, not being a fun loving jerk anymore, dead serious. Have you really come this far with THAT little grasp of my point - the same thing you are trying to argue??

Because of that, I'll have to try again. JFC:

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 never said no one could offer an opinion either. I just said they were useless/worthless. And I stand by it, as NO one has access to everything here, or on youtube. Anyone deciding if CIG/Crytek has won/lost already is doing so based off partial information, and their emotions.


ANYTHING you post, in support of CIG or Crytek (LOL that'll happen) does not matter. You DO NOT have all of the pertinent information. They haven't even been to discovery yet ffs.

You're busy trying to convince me CIG has a case. I DON'T CARE. Your opinion on it is worthless as you do not have ALL the information (just like mine on this! It's not about being anti-you/CIG).

So, continue to draw legal conclusions from partial evidence. I'll just keep laughing. You keep trying to convince me CIG has a case: I don't care if they do or not. People are NOT capable of making accurate conclusions from partial evidence was all I said, and what set the CIG white knights off to argue with me about details not related to my point, on stuff I said I won't discuss as it's pointless. A seemingly emotional bunch.


theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09:
PS - I tried to look up the word 'thinkiong' but all I could find was a Facebook page for some random guy in Malaysia.

Well you get a gold star for finding a typo. Now all you need to do is learn to understand the language you're attempting to correct me in. I'll hide a few more in my posts so you can feel accomplished at something. You can pretend they are steam achievements!

You can stick with your insults and trying to spot typos, I'll ride this merry go around until you get it, no sweat off my back.

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2018, 19:40.
 
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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 / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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 / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 17:50 Dacron
 
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.

Because I won't discuss what YOU want, while you entered into something different I'm discussing, I'm lazy? You must think your opinion means fuck all that I should just start a discussion with you because you want it - even though I explicitly said no.

You're the type to walk up to coworkers talking about cars, interrupt and start talking about dungeons and dragons, aren't you ? Or do you just hop in with Star Citizen ?


theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 14:32:
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.

Because that's how you want to play... right ?? I look forward to you continuing to try and discuss this case with me, so I can laugh at your inability to read simple English. I'm just going to laugh at you, reply to your childish, trollish bullshit until you decide to discuss with what I a said, or fuck off.

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2018, 18:09.
 
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 17:45 RedEye9
 
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.

 
Avatar 58135
 
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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 / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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
 
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 / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 12:59 Dacron
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 11:47:
For someone who's not interested in the specifics you sure have expended a lot of time and energy commenting on the matter.

I haven't spend any energy or time on the specifics of this case. Pretty sure I've mentioned it on nearly every reply (Is reading comprehension THAT difficult for you???). You've spent plenty needlessly talking to yourself which I've ignored as you can't grasp the fact I'm not discussing it.


theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 11:47:
For all your comments have been critical of CIG and supportive of Crytek REGARDLESS of the evidence presented

Not a single comment I made in this thread has supported either. All I've done is say you cannot draw legal conclusions without all the facts, and drew several hypothesis to support that statement. The fact you see this as support for Crytek (or anti CIG, lol) only shows how emotionally vested you are in his argument, and CIG. Pretty obvious where your bias lies.


theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 11:47:
As I said, a troll

No, you did not. You said I admitted I was a troll, which was a lie on your part, as is a lie on your part saying you said troll. Again - COMPREHENSION.

Seriously kid, you can argue CIG vs Crytek all you want. You're literally talking to yourself. You CANNOT draw a legal conclusion without all the facts. That you guys are arguing against that is fucking hilarious.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 12:10:
major derpage
LOL

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2018, 13:09.
 
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 12:11 Beamer
 
Prez wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 16:52:
Snapple isn't available here in the midsouth (at least I haven't come across it anywhere) I used to drink the Snapple Iced Tea like crazy when I lived in the norrheast. I miss my Drakes cakes more though.

There's a reason I enjoy your posting so much. This is it!

I miss Chocodiles.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 31, 2018, 12:10 RedEye9
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 11:47:
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.
theyarecomingforyou, you must have a household full of small children because you have a lot of patience.
 
Avatar 58135
 
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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 / Kraken X62 / 32GB DDR4
GTX 1080 Ti OC / Optane 900P
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: CIG Responds to Crytek Jan 30, 2018, 21:43 Redmask
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 17:18:
When everyone calls you out on being a douche, it means your a douche.

It's great that you have hit this point of realization about yourself, bravo Geek Squad.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo