dsmart wrote on Sep 4, 2018, 09:17:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 13:27:

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:17:
It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

I think that's true of the PU. However, I think we'll see SQ42 in a year or two though.

I see a lot of people saying this. I just don't subscribe to that faith. Given that they're still behind on core tech, and considering the incredibly high production bars for games now, I didn't see anything in the SQ42 vertical slice from Dec 2017 that leads me to believe that we'd see anything of that game - ever.

Even if they manage to rush something out, it will most likely end up being bog standard fare that you could get on Steam for $19.99. Except backers would have paid for a Gold chest, and ended up with a cardboard box.

Who am I kidding? I just don't see SQ42 ever coming out. And most certainly not as was pitched back in 2012. It's time has passed.

You could be right. I put the odds at 75/25 that it gets finished. SQ 42 has a more limited scope due to it's script, and is less prone to the continuous scope creep that infects the PU. Also Erin Roberts has a history of shipping games in a reasonable timeframe. Lastly, I think the pressure will be on RSI next year to release something. The natives are getting restless.

On the other hand, Hillary had a 75% chance of getting elected, and we know how that turned out.

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 4, 2018, 12:45:

dsmart wrote on Sep 4, 2018, 10:15:
I have released over 19 games across a 30 yr history.

Now we're getting down to the marrow of the bone.
Of course any gamer with half a brain, much less a full one, would be hard pressed to name 4 games you've cranked out during your prolific career (1 every 1.57 years). I guess you never heard the term "Quality over Quantity."

Smart, you sound and act like a petty, bitter little man.
Enjoy your 10 minutes of fame.

Since you have no purpose in any thread but to engage in petty, meaningless attacks, while not contributing anything, welcome to my ignore list.

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Sep 4, 2018, 13:26.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
You're just being obtuse now. It means there is a legal basis for it to proceed to court, not that the claims have merit. They can be easily dismissed at the next stage. A Motion to Dismiss doesn't determine merit, only the legal basis for a claim. The Motion to Dismiss doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood of the claims being upheld, it just means further evidence is required to clarify those points.

I never claimed ANY of the above. Yet, you keep parroting it as if I did. That's deflection.

I have been CONSISTENT in what I've been saying. That being YOU guys - and the "legal experts" - had claimed that the lawsuit was bs. If that was the case, the MtD would have succeeded in its ENTIRETY. And that has EVERYTHING to do with the merits of a case. If the claims had NO merits, then it would NEVER have survived an MtD. That's how that works. That's what an MtD is designed to do.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
A normal person doesn't have half a brain, they have a full one. I'm starting to see your confusion.

I see that one flew over your head. Makes sense.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Further, all of this is predicated on RSI being a signatory to the contract when it wasn't, only to a Autodesk licence. The court also overlooked that 'The Game' is defined as including Star Citizen and Squadron 42, even though it was defined by Crytek in the GLA. All things easily dismissed once evidence is presented in court.

That's hilarious. You ARE aware that the judge ruled that RSI was in fact party to the GLA, right? So you're saying you and the "legal experts" know more about the law and common sense than a FEDERAL JUDGE?! LOL!!

The definition of "GAME" already passed the bar for litigation. If it didn't, the judge would have granted the dismissal of that claim. Instead, she agreed with the reading of the GLA and let it stand.

Further, you don't know what "evidence" means because the ONLY evidence for this is already IN THE GLA. What? You think there's some other supa sekret contract hiding somewhere? LOL!!

That you think it's "easily dismissed" is the height of ignorance because if that was the case, it wouldn't have survived an MtD, as that's the FIRST bar of entry that ANY claim has to survive in order to proceed.

Jesus, it's almost as if you're just ignoring even the most basic of facts, while clinging onto straws.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Yes, $100m in damages for a contract in which CIG only paid a fraction of that amount is absurd. And given the amount won't be anything like that Star Citizen won't collapse.

Again, you're displaying ignorance. The law DOES NOT CARE about the value of the license. They care about the ILLICIT PROFIT of a contractual breach. It doesn't matter if what you stole cost $5 or $15. If you sold it for $500, that's the claim. You know there's a LEGAL bar for all such things, right? e.g. read up on the difference between a charge of "theft" and "felony theft" or "battery" vs "aggravated battery" etc.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Finally, the GLA grants Crytek the right to improvements to the engine developed by CIG but there is no timeframe specified in the contract and CIG has changed engines, terminating the GLA.

You're wrong in ALL of the above. And I'm certain that either you didn't read the GLA, you didn't understand it, or you're being willfully ignorance of the facts. Or you're just lying (which is always a possibility with you guys).

Section 7.3, p12

Reverse Technology Transfer. Annually during the Game’s development period, and again
upon publication of the final Game, Licensee shall provide Crytek with any bug fixes, and
optimizations made to the CryEngine's original source code files (including CryEngine tools
provided by Crytek ) as a complete compilable version. All such technology outlined in this
Section and provided by Licensee to Crytek pursuant to this section (collectively the
“Reverse Technology Transfer”) shall be the sole and exclusive property of Licensee. Given
that such Reverse Technology Transfer is the sole and exclusive property of Licensee,
Licensee hereby grants Crytek a non-exclusive, royalty-free and perpetual license to such
Reverse Technology Transfer (“Reverse Technology License”) solely for the purposes of ( 1)
using the Reverse Technology Transfer internally at Crytek, (2) incorporating the Reverse
Technology Transfer in future releases of the CryEngine and (3) distributing the CryEngine,
with the embedded Reverse Technology Transfer to third parties without restriction and
without payment of any additional fees or royalties to Licensee. Crytek acknowledges that it
does not and will not obtain any rights in the Game itself.

See the word "annually"? What do you think that means? I'll wait.

Section 8, p13

Term. The Term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date. Unless sooner
terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof, the Term shall remain in force for the
Commercial Life of the Game.

Termination. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or the license grants
with respect to the Game prior to the end of the Term immediately upon written notice
delivered to the other party if, at any time: (a) the other party is in material breach of any
term, condition or covenant of this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within thirty (30)
days after its receipt of written notice thereof by the other party; or (b) the other party (i)
becomes insolvent; or (ii) admits in writing its insolvency or inability to pay its debts or
perform its obligations as they mature; or (iii) makes or attempts an assignment for the
benefit of creditors; or (iv) files a petition for reorganization, readjustment or rearrangement of
its business or affairs under any laws or governmental regulations relating to bankruptcy or
insolvency, or is adjudicated bankrupt or if a receiver is appointed for such other party and such
action is not dismissed within sixty (60) days. In addition, Crytek shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement (x ) in the event it ceases generally to provide the CryEngine to its
customers, or (y) pursuant to Sections 6.1.2 (iii).

Effect of Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the license shall immediately and
automatically end and Licensee shall immediately take the following measures: (a) Licensee
shall return the CryEngine and any and all material related thereto to Crytek (including all
data carriers and documentation); and (b) Licensee shall delete and/or destroy any and all
copies of the CryEngine, whether in object code or source code, in whole or in part,
permanent or temporary; and (c) Licensee shall promptly provide to Crytek a statement
signed by an authorized officer of Licensee that any and all material regarding the CryEngine
have been returned to Crytek and any and all copies of the CryEngine have been deleted
and/or destroyed. Sections 6.3 and 7 shall survive any termination of this Agreement, as well
as any other provisions which by their terms or meaning are intended to survive. Termination
of this Agreement shall not relieve the Parties of any obligation accruing prior to such
termination.

Please point to the part where switching engines - even if they DID do that - terminates the GLA.

And while you're at it, please point to the part of the CIG response and their MtD where they claim that the GLA had in fact terminated, thus meaning that the lawsuit itself had no merit as a result of that.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Stating 'by law' in a contract dispute is meaningless, as both parties have differing interpretations and it is for the court to determine the correct interpretation of the contract under the law.

OK, I'm convinced that you're an ignorant fool. The whole point of "by law" isn't meaningless. It's about jurisdiction and findings of fact. How else do you think that the disputing parties will be able to seek a legal remedy? That's the whole point and why Crytek is using CIG. And in doing so, were able to convince a FEDERAL JUDGE that 5/6 of their claims had enough merit to GO TO TRIAL.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Apologies if I wasn't clear. The judge sided with CIG's interpretation that Crytek's claim was absurd, rather than herself calling it absurd. It's a valid distinction but doesn't change the end result.

No apologies needed.

And you're still WRONG because she did NO SUCH thing. Jesus, I even posted both excerpts of her ruling. It's almost as if you either don't understand English, lack reading comprehension skills, or you're just ignorant and/or arguing in BAD FAITH.

She excerpted a case precedent ruling which claimed that the definition of "exclusive" as explained by Crytek didn't pass the smell test because of how contract law interprets contracts based on either the actual language, or when there is a dispute, the intent of the contract. FYI, this is a good example of how claims don't survive an MtD; which is why I've been explaining to you for DAYS now, but you choose to ignore it. She killed it. Which means it's not going to be a valid claim during the lawsuit UNLESS Crytek - through discovery - can provide evidence (recordings, emails, paperwork etc) that shows the INTENT of the contract was for it to be an exclusive. Then Crytek can - again - amend their complaint, thus proving to the judge that the claim passed the muster for the GLA implying that it was to be an exclusive.

She then excerpted CIG's own use of the word "absurd" which, btw, is came from CIG's response to the lawsuit.

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at
the time the contract was formed. Thor Seafood Corp. v. Supply Mgmt. Servs., 352 F. Supp. 2d
1128, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The language of the contract alone governs the parties’ intention
and the contract’s meaning, so long as the language is clear, explicit, and does not involve an
absurdity. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639, see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1,
18, 19 (1995) (“Courts will not strain to create ambiguity where none exists.”).

She wasn't "siding" with CIG. She was citing case law, as well as pointing out how CIG described it; hence her indicating that she didn't cite the whole thing.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
The odds were 60/40 of it getting dismissed in its entirety. In other words there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue. So yeah, maths really isn't that hard and yet still you manage to mess it up.

Wow. Just wow.

Your "legal experts" gave the MtD a 60/40 chance of "getting dismissed in its entirety". And you somehow interpret that to mean "there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue"?

ps: That's not even about math btw, it's about common sense logic.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
Well there's: 1) Crytek not paying staff, 2) Amazon saved Crytek from bankruptcy, 3) Crytek shuts down five studios after weak 2016, 4) Crytek's CEO was ousted after Crytek received investment to keep afloat

Nice deflection there. NONE of that supports your claims about Crytek's penchant for the contractual breach that you claimed, and to which I was responding. And NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Crytek's contract licensing practices - which is what we were arguing about in that instance.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
It's funny how you claim to know all the details about this situation and yet have conveniently ignored that Crytek is broke and desperate for money which is great motivation for a spurious lawsuit. If you don't even know basis about the situation like that then how can we take anything you say seriously?

NONE of which is relevant. Stop deflecting.

And I am not asking anyone (least of all you, who I'm just making look stupid) to take me seriously. That would imply that I care enough about what people think or that I would seek to encroach on their ability to deduce for themselves what's going on. Most people aren't stupid. At least not intentionally. That's all there is to it.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 15:19:
You're talking about Line of Defense, right? Because yeah, it is a massive laughing stock of the industry. Maybe even a scam. Good point.

Nice try. It took you long enough. The dog whistle from your cohort a few comments ago, appears to have worked.

I can go to any search engine - right now - and put in the game of my game, and the name of Star Citizen, then see the results of which one is a "massive laughing stock" or "maybe even a scam". You should try it. When you're done, look up the difference between a crowd-funded game, and a self-funded one. Get back to me on that, as I'm sure it will be hilarious.

ps: I have released over 19 games across a 30 yr history. CIG/RSI have yet to build a SINGLE game after 7 yrs and $192M of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 2018, 12:11.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 13:27:

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:17:
It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

I think that's true of the PU. However, I think we'll see SQ42 in a year or two though.

I see a lot of people saying this. I just don't subscribe to that faith. Given that they're still behind on core tech, and considering the incredibly high production bars for games now, I didn't see anything in the SQ42 vertical slice from Dec 2017 that leads me to believe that we'd see anything of that game - ever.

Even if they manage to rush something out, it will most likely end up being bog standard fare that you could get on Steam for $19.99. Except backers would have paid for a Gold chest, and ended up with a cardboard box.

Who am I kidding? I just don't see SQ42 ever coming out. And most certainly not as was pitched back in 2012. It's time has passed.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
You only just discovered this?

You're going around in circles. Point is that if the claims were bs - as YOU guys keep going on about - there would be NO case because the MtD would have passed ALL SIX BARS and the case would have ENDED.

That the judge only allowed 2/6 (do the percentage math), not 5/6, 4/6, not even 3/6, shows that the case HAS MERITS.

You're just being obtuse now. It means there is a legal basis for it to proceed to court, not that the claims have merit. They can be easily dismissed at the next stage. A Motion to Dismiss doesn't determine merit, only the legal basis for a claim. The Motion to Dismiss doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood of the claims being upheld, it just means further evidence is required to clarify those points.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
And that 1 of those was IMMATERIAL (it was about monetary damages, not about actual claims) to the case; while the other (2.1.2) was basically substituted (2.4). So if CIG do file another MtD for the new 2.4, and it's denied (as I expect that it will because the GLA was NEVER TERMINATED) we're at 5/6 going to trial. That doesn't sound like a bs claims case to me - or any normal person with half a brain.

A normal person doesn't have half a brain, they have a full one. I'm starting to see your confusion. Further, all of this is predicated on RSI being a signatory to the contract when it wasn't, only to a Autodesk licence. The court also overlooked that 'The Game' is defined as including Star Citizen and Squadron 42, even though it was defined by Crytek in the GLA. All things easily dismissed once evidence is presented in court.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
It's news to you because you already admitted that you don't even read my articles which have been CONSISTENT in explaining precisely what I just broke down for you. So your contention is that :

- The $100M monetary damages is nonsense
- Crytek winning a large award won't lead to the project collapsing
- Crytek won't get access to the source code - even though the GLA entitles them to it by law

Yes, $100m in damages for a contract in which CIG only paid a fraction of that amount is absurd. And given the amount won't be anything like that Star Citizen won't collapse. Finally, the GLA grants Crytek the right to improvements to the engine developed by CIG but there is no timeframe specified in the contract and CIG has changed engines, terminating the GLA. Stating 'by law' in a contract dispute is meaningless, as both parties have differing interpretations and it is for the court to determine the correct interpretation of the contract under the law.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
p10. Here she is citing the word used by CIG in their response to the lawsuit

Further, this interpretation of “exclusively” gives full effect to the GLA’s surrounding
provisions. For example, section 2.1.1’s non-exclusive grant allows Defendants to “develop,
support, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine” without precluding Crytek from permitting
others to improve upon the software as well. Id. at § 2.1.1. Yet, the grant of authority is expressly
“exclusive” to Defendants “with respect to [Star Citizen]” because Defendants own Star Citizen
and Crytek presumably lacks the independent authority to grant third parties the right to improve
any software in connection with Defendants’ game. Id. In fact, Crytek appears to agree with this
point, even if Plaintiff misunderstands why it supports Defendants’ interpretation. See Opp’n at
15 (“Defendants’ interpretation of the word ‘exclusively’ in Section 2.1.2 is that Crytek gave only
Defendants—not some unrelated third party—the right to embed CryEngine in Defendants’ game
Star Citizen. That is absurd: How could Crytek license a third party to do anything at all with
Defendants’ software?” (citation omitted)).

Apologies if I wasn't clear. The judge sided with CIG's interpretation that Crytek's claim was absurd, rather than herself calling it absurd. It's a valid distinction but doesn't change the end result.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
I think I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that I know fully well how an MtD works. I even provided a cited links. You, on the other hand, are repeating the same nonsense, while ignoring factual evidence being presented. I know, facts tend to hurt. But don't worry, you'll live through it all.

You've made your opinion clear. We shall see.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
Math is hard. But you can do it. 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6, 6/6. It's not hard. When you have a MtD that doesn't even get dismissed by 50% (3/6), I would say that you're not looking at a "bs lawsuit" - you're looking at a world of hurt.

The odds were 60/40 of it getting dismissed in its entirety. In other words there was a high chance that portions of the lawsuit would continue. So yeah, maths really isn't that hard and yet still you manage to mess it up.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
- It's hilarious that you think Crytek is on the "verge of bankruptcy", while having ZERO evidence to support that claim. Yet you're knocking me for making an analysis about CIG's ability to remain a going concern.

Well there's: 1) Crytek not paying staff, 2) Amazon saved Crytek from bankruptcy, 3) Crytek shuts down five studios after weak 2016, 4) Crytek's CEO was ousted after Crytek received investment to keep afloat

It's funny how you claim to know all the details about this situation and yet have conveniently ignored that Crytek is broke and desperate for money which is great motivation for a spurious lawsuit. If you don't even know basis about the situation like that then how can we take anything you say seriously?

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
You don't - and never have - argued in good faith. That's why most of your comments on BN over the years, tend to just be ignored or devolve into bs arguments, insults, attacks etc - mostly from and by you.

Wow, projection much?!

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:55:
The project is DEAD, it's the laughing stock of the entirety of gaming - save for the few whales and White Knights still clinging onto to a shred of "hope", even as Chris and his cohorts do everything they can to take (using backer money to build studios, then sell it back to themselves, taking excessive pay - even as they plunge the project into debt, put their largest studio into insolvency etc) money OUT of the project and line their pockets. But that's OK though because throughout the history of scams, nobody likes to face the reality or admit that they had been scammed.

You're talking about Line of Defense, right? Because yeah, it is a massive laughing stock of the industry. Maybe even a scam. Good point.

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:17:
It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

I think that's true of the PU. However, I think we'll see SQ42 in a year or two though.

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 11:01:
Currently in CLOSED beta.
Last Developer Status Update: February 2018
nuff said

lol

Nice try with the low hanging fruit. I'm the one selling JPEG futures, and not a bonus DLC for a project that actually works and is implemented. Yeah - OK.

Not that truth ever gets in the way of bs though.

It's funny when you have an indie dev working on multiple games with his own money; and you try to - hilariously - compare that to a company that has basically scammed $192M from gamers without ever developing either of the promised products.

Don't worry though, I can see how attacking me and/or my games, makes Star Citizen totally a game that's coming out and will be great!

dsmart wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 10:17:

It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

Oh the Irony.
February 2011; 3000AD Announces "Line Of Defense".

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Derek_Smart

https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/20/5825594/would-you-buy-an-unfinished-free-to-play-game-for-99

Currently in CLOSED beta.
Last Developer Status Update: February 2018
nuff said

lol

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
The Motion to Dismiss just deals with the legal principle of a claim, not its merit. The claims struck down had no basis in law, with the rest proceeding to trial. Anything dismissed favours the defendant but is neutral to the plaintiff.

You only just discovered this?

You're going around in circles. Point is that if the claims were bs - as YOU guys keep going on about - there would be NO case because the MtD would have passed ALL SIX BARS and the case would have ENDED.

That the judge only allowed 2/6 (do the percentage math), not 5/6, 4/6, not even 3/6, shows that the case HAS MERITS.

And that 1 of those was IMMATERIAL (it was about monetary damages, not about actual claims) to the case; while the other (2.1.2) was basically substituted (2.4). So if CIG do file another MtD for the new 2.4, and it's denied (as I expect that it will because the GLA was NEVER TERMINATED) we're at 5/6 going to trial. That doesn't sound like a bs claims case to me - or any normal person with half a brain.

FYI MtD are used to end cases ALL THE TIME and are very effective in doing that. That's what they were designed to do so as not to clog up the justice system with frivolous suits without merit. Read up on it when you take time off your strawman arguments.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
There we go, that wasn't so hard. So basically your position is that Crytek is completely justified and you're expecting them to succeed with a claim for at least $100m, which will result in development of Star Citizen halting and Crytek getting access to the source code. Based on the legal opinions I've seen nothing even close to that will happen but at least we've got you on record for when you're proven wrong.

It's news to you because you already admitted that you don't even read my articles which have been CONSISTENT in explaining precisely what I just broke down for you. So your contention is that :

- The $100M monetary damages is nonsense
- Crytek winning a large award won't lead to the project collapsing
- Crytek won't get access to the source code - even though the GLA entitles them to it by law

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
1) The judge called Crytek's interpretation of exclusive as 'absurd'

That's patently false. The words "absurdity" and "absurd" which appear in her MtD ruling had NOTHING to do with her opinion of the "exclusivity" claim. wow - you're really digging deep aren't you?

p7. Here she is quoting/citing from the case law she excerpted:

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at
the time the contract was formed. Thor Seafood Corp. v. Supply Mgmt. Servs., 352 F. Supp. 2d
1128, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The language of the contract alone governs the parties’ intention
and the contract’s meaning, so long as the language is clear, explicit, and does not involve an
absurdity. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639, see Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1,
18, 19 (1995) (“Courts will not strain to create ambiguity where none exists.”).

p10. Here she is citing the word used by CIG in their response to the lawsuit

Further, this interpretation of “exclusively” gives full effect to the GLA’s surrounding
provisions. For example, section 2.1.1’s non-exclusive grant allows Defendants to “develop,
support, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine” without precluding Crytek from permitting
others to improve upon the software as well. Id. at § 2.1.1. Yet, the grant of authority is expressly
“exclusive” to Defendants “with respect to [Star Citizen]” because Defendants own Star Citizen
and Crytek presumably lacks the independent authority to grant third parties the right to improve
any software in connection with Defendants’ game. Id. In fact, Crytek appears to agree with this
point, even if Plaintiff misunderstands why it supports Defendants’ interpretation. See Opp’n at
15 (“Defendants’ interpretation of the word ‘exclusively’ in Section 2.1.2 is that Crytek gave only
Defendants—not some unrelated third party—the right to embed CryEngine in Defendants’ game
Star Citizen. That is absurd: How could Crytek license a third party to do anything at all with
Defendants’ software?” (citation omitted)).

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
2) That's not how a Motion to Dismiss works and you either a) know that and are shitstirring, or b) you don't have a clue and therefore shouldn't be commenting on the matter.

I think I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that I know fully well how an MtD works. I even provided a cited links. You, on the other hand, are repeating the same nonsense, while ignoring factual evidence being presented. I know, facts tend to hurt. But don't worry, you'll live through it all.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
Look, I'm not going to sit here and explain percentages to you. If you don't understand the basics then I really can't help you.

Math is hard. But you can do it. 1/6, 2/6, 3/6, 4/6, 5/6, 6/6. It's not hard. When you have a MtD that doesn't even get dismissed by 50% (3/6), I would say that you're not looking at a "bs lawsuit" - you're looking at a world of hurt.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:44:
It defies logic that CIG could enter into a contract with Crytek worth $2m and then later decide to use another engine yet owe Crytek $100m as a result. Why would any company want to do business with Crytek if this is how it behaves? It's a desperate move by a company on the verge of bankruptcy.

That's hilarious on a million levels.

- The value ($2M) of the license has NOTHING to do with contractual breach of contract, copyright infringement etc. Those monetary damages are calculated based on both the "revenue gains" from the unlawful activity, as well as damages for actually doing it. That's why Crytek WILL ask for and WILL get access to the CIG financials through discovery because they are entitled to them in order to determine how CIG gained from the alleged illegal activity. Go ahead, look it up.

- If CIG hadn't violated the contract they signed, thus forcing Crytek to take legal action, there would be NO lawsuit. That you think it's OK for a company to ignore breaches in a contract that it executed, is a tenuous position - at best. It's not even White Knighting at this point; it's blatant ignorance.

- There are MANY companies doing business with Crytek, how many have they sued, or sued them over their contracts? Don't bother, I can tell you: ZERO. So to come with up "if this is how it behaves" is, again, ignorance that goes beyond White Knighting.

- It's hilarious that you think Crytek is on the "verge of bankruptcy", while having ZERO evidence to support that claim. Yet you're knocking me for making an analysis about CIG's ability to remain a going concern.

Forget about the fact that a company on the very of BK doesn't go out and hire the best and most expensive law firms in the WORLD.

Should I mention that Hunt, their game which isn't even out of EA has sold almost a million units?

What about the fact that Crytek consolidated their assets and sold some IP to the likes of my.com etc? Shall I go on?

FYI: You are aware that F42 group (UK/GER), as of Dec 2017 financials, is insolvent (this is the part where you Google what means), right?

In conclusion....

You don't - and never have - argued in good faith. That's why most of your comments on BN over the years, tend to just be ignored or devolve into bs arguments, insults, attacks etc - mostly from and by you. And of course the likes of you being a Star Citizen White Knight makes a ton of sense, all things considered.

The project is DEAD, it's the laughing stock of the entirety of gaming - save for the few whales and White Knights still clinging onto to a shred of "hope", even as Chris and his cohorts do everything they can to take (using backer money to build studios, then sell it back to themselves, taking excessive pay - even as they plunge the project into debt, put their largest studio into insolvency etc) money OUT of the project and line their pockets. But that's OK though because throughout the history of scams, nobody likes to face the reality or admit that they had been scammed.

CJ_Parker wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:42:

dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:54:
It's 7 yrs + $192M later, and not even 20% completed.

You are being extremely generous here. I'd say we can safely scratch that '0'. It's maybe 2% finished, IF that.

The star systems are a huge chunk of the content and we still have only a single one that is not finished. They promised 100 star systems at launch (per the $6m stretch goal). This dictates we're at less than 1% delivery (one star system, not finished) in that regard alone.

Aside from a very unfinished game engine that is still missing many promised features and/or support for certain hardware and technologies, the vast majority of the gameplay systems are a complete no-show, many, many ships (or their third or fourth rework before they have even been added to the game) are nowhere near finished, the infrastructure (i.e. their server mesh) is obviously also nowhere near ready to accommodate any of these yet to be developed gameplay systems or to allow for travel between star systems and so on.
The database systems are far from finished. The game only has very barebone persistence at this point.
And let's not even get started on peripheral unfinished stuff like the integration of the game with external services and stuff like that.

Yeah... 2% is generous. Your 20% is ... well, have you secretly turned into a SC fanboi Derek?

Yeah, I know, right? We tend to use the empirical values.

Fact is that it doesn't matter if it's 2% or 20% because an unfinished game is still an unfinished game, and nobody will care what percentage unfinished it is.

It's never - ever - getting finished. Like ever.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 3, 2018, 04:17:
I'm hoping that Sq 42 is 80% complete, and will be released soon cuz that's all I'm really interested in.

I'm hoping I'll win the lottery this week.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:35:
LOL! Really? A FEDERAL JUDGE found that, contrary to what you guys keep spouting, the Crytek lawsuit had merits. To the extent that she only dismissed 2 of out 6 claims - of which one was immaterial, and another was replaced.

The Motion to Dismiss just deals with the legal principle of a claim, not its merit. The claims struck down had no basis in law, with the rest proceeding to trial. Anything dismissed favours the defendant but is neutral to the plaintiff.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:35:
1) I don't know how much CIG will pay out. And even if there is a settlement - which I do NOT see happening - that settlement won't be public. They never are. Only jury or court awards are made public via court filings. I already estimated that I don't see Crytek settling for anything less than $100M specifically due to a) precedent in cases like this b) the monetary damages are based on what CIG has benefited. In this case, we're at $192M and counting. All free money.

2) If Crytek win any aspect of this lawsuit, I fully expect that the development will end simply because the claims go beyond monetary damages.

3) Crytek WILL gain access to the source code via discovery. This part isn't even in dispute. Aside from the fact that the GLA always entitled them to the source code - and CIG isn't even disputing that. It's actually in their (CIG) own filing where they claimed they have been giving Crytek code drops; which Crytek says are bs and don't compile. You should read my last article on the case for the context of this, and just how destructive it's going to be for CIG - hence the reason they keep staling discovery, while trying to get Crytek to the settlement table without success.

There we go, that wasn't so hard. So basically your position is that Crytek is completely justified and you're expecting them to succeed with a claim for at least $100m, which will result in development of Star Citizen halting and Crytek getting access to the source code. Based on the legal opinions I've seen nothing even close to that will happen but at least we've got you on record for when you're proven wrong.

First, that's completely FALSE, as Crytek didn't hide anything. And second, the "legal experts" aren't more experienced than a FEDERAL JUDGE who didn't come up with ANY such findings in the Crytek complaint or 1) she would have flagged it 2) she would have granted CIG their completely MtD dismissal.

1) The judge called Crytek's interpretation of exclusive as 'absurd' and struck down elements of the lawsuit. 2) That's not how a Motion to Dismiss works and you either a) know that and are shitstirring, or b) you don't have a clue and therefore shouldn't be commenting on the matter.

Others? You mean you and that dude who posted the video that French put up with his correction? And which, barely 30 secs from the link the dude posted, French gave the MtD 60/40 of success? This was the SAME French who, after making all kinds of dismissive claims, went back and did another video retraction in support of what I called him out on? LOL!! Man, you're on a roll today.

Look, I'm not going to sit here and explain percentages to you. If you don't understand the basics then I really can't help you.

It defies logic that CIG could enter into a contract with Crytek worth $2m and then later decide to use another engine yet owe Crytek $100m as a result. Why would any company want to do business with Crytek if this is how it behaves? It's a desperate move by a company on the verge of bankruptcy.

CJ_Parker wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 07:42:

dsmart wrote on Sep 1, 2018, 20:54:
It's 7 yrs + $192M later, and not even 20% completed.

You are being extremely generous here. I'd say we can safely scratch that '0'. It's maybe 2% finished, IF that.

The star systems are a huge chunk of the content and we still have only a single one that is not finished. They promised 100 star systems at launch (per the $6m stretch goal). This dictates we're at less than 1% delivery (one star system, not finished) in that regard alone.

Aside from a very unfinished game engine that is still missing many promised features and/or support for certain hardware and technologies, the vast majority of the gameplay systems are a complete no-show, many, many ships (or their third or fourth rework before they have even been added to the game) are nowhere near finished, the infrastructure (i.e. their server mesh) is obviously also nowhere near ready to accommodate any of these yet to be developed gameplay systems or to allow for travel between star systems and so on.
The database systems are far from finished. The game only has very barebone persistence at this point.
And let's not even get started on peripheral unfinished stuff like the integration of the game with external services and stuff like that.

Yeah... 2% is generous. Your 20% is ... well, have you secretly turned into a SC fanboi Derek?

I would say content is 5% complete (many ships, person models, weapons, port and station assets, etc.) are built that will be used in all systems, even if they have yet to complete 1 star system.

The engine itself is probably 60% complete.

I'm hoping that Sq 42 is 80% complete, and will be released soon cuz that's all I'm really interested in.

Choobeastia wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:25:
Can we have a new Godwin's law for Trump references? Choobeast's law?

Anything as long as dumps hame is not in it. Rule 45, 45's Law, Theorem 45, Fuckface Von Clownstick's Rules to Get Impeached By or is that too long.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:35:
it's as if you expect those things to become true by virtue of your repeating them while perched on a shaky flawed stance.

Ever work for a theater chain? You'd make a hell of a projectionist.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:14:
As I pointed out, neither said it would be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss but that the claims were weak.

Nice backtracking there, pal

Nothing has changed with the court's ruling.

LOL! Really? A FEDERAL JUDGE found that, contrary to what you guys keep spouting, the Crytek lawsuit had merits. To the extent that she only dismissed 2 of out 6 claims - of which one was immaterial, and another was replaced.

And how convenient that you refuse to state what you expect the outcome to be. How much will CIG have to pay out? Will development of the game shut down? Will Crytek be given access to CIG's source code? Come on, for someone who has all the answers you seem pretty shy about giving an answer.

Except for the part where, since I was the one who broke the news on the lawsuit, and have written SEVERAL articles about it since Dec 2017? In fact, there is a "Crytek v CIG/RSI" section on my forum dedicated specifically to the case, and which contains links to all my articles about each aspect of the case, each filing etc. You think I'm going to repeat them here for you? LOL!!! Dude, just click - and read. They are all in chrono order even.

But anyway:

1) I don't know how much CIG will pay out. And even if there is a settlement - which I do NOT see happening - that settlement won't be public. They never are. Only jury or court awards are made public via court filings. I already estimated that I don't see Crytek settling for anything less than $100M specifically due to a) precedent in cases like this b) the monetary damages are based on what CIG has benefited. In this case, we're at $192M and counting. All free money.

2) If Crytek win any aspect of this lawsuit, I fully expect that the development will end simply because the claims go beyond monetary damages.

3) Crytek WILL gain access to the source code via discovery. This part isn't even in dispute. Aside from the fact that the GLA always entitled them to the source code - and CIG isn't even disputing that. It's actually in their (CIG) own filing where they claimed they have been giving Crytek code drops; which Crytek says are bs and don't compile. You should read my last article on the case for the context of this, and just how destructive it's going to be for CIG - hence the reason they keep staling discovery, while trying to get Crytek to the settlement table without success.

Yes, hence why I asked whether you had given you completely misrepresented what they actually said. As always you just hear what you want to hear.

Except that's FALSE; and I already provided links to what I stated, what they stated, how they were wrong etc. You can ignore it all you want, I don't care because you're already arguing in bad faith; and I'm just here to keep throwing it all in your face.

When legal experts point out that Crytek was concealing information from the court and has a weak case you hear 'this will put CIG out of business' and starting drooling.

First, that's completely FALSE, as Crytek didn't hide anything. And second, the "legal experts" aren't more experienced than a FEDERAL JUDGE who didn't come up with ANY such findings in the Crytek complaint or 1) she would have flagged it 2) she would have granted CIG their completely MtD dismissal.

That's fine but everyone else here is free to watch the videos for themselves and others have pointed out exactly what I have, that they never claimed the Motion to Dismiss would stop all claims.

Others? You mean you and that dude who posted the video that French put up with his correction? And which, barely 30 secs from the link the dude posted, French gave the MtD 60/40 of success? This was the SAME French who, after making all kinds of dismissive claims, went back and did another video retraction in support of what I called him out on? LOL!! Man, you're on a roll today.

You can try to Trump your way through discussions by telling lies endlessly one after another but nobody here has the patience for that and you'll just be ignored. You're not important.

I have been posted facts. That you choose to ignore them, while engaging in circular arguments, is your problem, not mine. My guess is that people who give a shit long enough to read this exchange, can make up their own minds about the merits and facts of what you and I are both arguing about.

I'd rather shove a screwdriver down my japseye than visit your website.

Right. So don't blame me because you're ignorant of the things I've written, THEN try to claim otherwise.

Which is precisely what you're doing. You're ignoring the arguments and FACTS, by engaging in strawman and circular arguments because, like the train-wreck that is Star Citizen, it's as if you expect those things to become true by virtue of your repeating them while perched on a shaky flawed stance.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:14:
You can try to Trump your way through discussions by telling lies endlessly one after another but nobody here has the patience for that and you'll just be ignored. You're not important.

Back to back Trump references for Smart between you and I! I worry that the state of things in the US has the sitting president being used as the definition of a lying propagandist.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
LOL!! Nice try.

BOTH French and Lessor were making all kinds of claims regarding the lawsuit, that it had no merits, that the CIG response was solid, that the MtD would succeed etc. If a case is bs, NONE of the claims will survive a MtD. So CLEARLY the judge found that Crytek's complaints DID have merit. And the MtD ruling says all there is to say about that.

Heck, even in his follow-up video, AFTER correcting (see link below) himself after I called him out on his bs on Twitter and on YT, French went and gave it 60/40 chance of success.

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=27.msg7228;topicseen#msg7228

https://twitter.com/UnsafestSpace/status/954463514793578496

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg7141;topicseen#msg7141

ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!

pps: Yes, I watched all the videos about this that BOTH French and Lessor put out. Did you?

You realize that 60/40 isn't "it had no merits." And the MtD did succeed in the one area he seemed most sure about, the matter of the "exclusive" clause. I also remember that his initial comments were concerned that the GLA wasn't included with the complaint, but referenced it repetitively, and that being his primary reasoning for the case to be dismissed.

You remind me of Trump. You think if you say something enough, it will define the narrative, and sway views.

Can we have a new Godwin's law for Trump references? Choobeast's law?

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
LOL!! Nice try.

BOTH French and Lessor were making all kinds of claims regarding the lawsuit, that it had no merits, that the CIG response was solid, that the MtD would succeed etc. If a case is bs, NONE of the claims will survive a MtD. So CLEARLY the judge found that Crytek's complaints DID have merit. And the MtD ruling says all there is to say about that.

As I pointed out, neither said it would be dismissed at the Motion to Dismiss but that the claims were weak. Nothing has changed with the court's ruling. And how convenient that you refuse to state what you expect the outcome to be. How much will CIG have to pay out? Will development of the game shut down? Will Crytek be given access to CIG's source code? Come on, for someone who has all the answers you seem pretty shy about giving an answer.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
pps: Yes, I watched all the videos about this that BOTH French and Lessor put out. Did you?

Yes, hence why I asked whether you had given you completely misrepresented what they actually said. As always you just hear what you want to hear. When legal experts point out that Crytek was concealing information from the court and has a weak case you hear 'this will put CIG out of business' and starting drooling. That's fine but everyone else here is free to watch the videos for themselves and others have pointed out exactly what I have, that they never claimed the Motion to Dismiss would stop all claims.

You can try to Trump your way through discussions by telling lies endlessly one after another but nobody here has the patience for that and you'll just be ignored. You're not important.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!

I'd rather shove a screwdriver down my japseye than visit your website.