Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee

Star Citizen backers are generally pretty understanding about Cloud Imperium Gaming's ongoing crowdfunding efforts, and many of them own hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of virtual ships for CIG's upcoming space game(s). An effort to raise more funds for CitizenCon has met with outrage, however, as fans balked at an effort to charge to watch a livestream of the keynote for the convention. After considerable backlash on Reddit, the developer has relented and made the stream free once again (thanks theyarecomingforyou). Chris Roberts' post about all this outlines initial reasoning that sounds similar to what's happened with development of the game itself, saying more money was sought because the scope of the convention has expanded beyond their initial plans:
This year's CitizenCon is much bigger than last years, with two separate stages and tracks. We did this because we felt the format we tested last year was a success and because of this we wanted to expand it to allow more people to attend and provide more opportunities to hear from and interact with the devs.

With a venue and planned attendance three times the CitizenCon in Frankfurt, with more panels (so more devs needing to travel) , more food and drink options for everyone the proposed budget for this year's CitizenCon was almost double last years. And this was without any video coverage, let alone streaming of the second stage, and a plan to just stream the opening keynote from the main stage.

Yes, you read that right, the original plan didn't have any plan for streaming anything beyond the opening keynote. There was not even video archiving of the second stage due the additional costs of getting a second video crew for that stage. Even then there was some debate as to whether it was truly worth it to spend a chunk of change to stream the opening keynote for 90 minutes when we're always in a foot race to compress it as a high-quality video and post to YouTube as quickly as possible after the demo so people can enjoy a HD Video as opposed to a crappy re-post of a Twitch Stream.
View : : :
80.
 
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 3, 2018, 10:55
80.
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 10:55
Sep 3, 2018, 10:55
 
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.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them
Avatar 9141
Date
Subject
Author
52.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
53.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
54.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
56.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
58.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
55.
Sep 1, 2018Sep 1 2018
60.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
63.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
64.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
65.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
68.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
66.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
67.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
69.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
70.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
72.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
73.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
74.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
77.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
 80.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
                Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
84.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
86.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                  Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
87.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                   removed
88.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
                    Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
71.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
75.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
59.
Sep 2, 2018Sep 2 2018
76.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
78.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
79.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
81.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
82.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
83.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
85.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018
89.
Sep 4, 2018Sep 4 2018