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 : : :
84.
 
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
Sep 3, 2018, 15:19
84.
Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee Sep 3, 2018, 15:19
Sep 3, 2018, 15:19
 
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.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
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
 84.
Sep 3, 2018Sep 3 2018
                 Re: Star Citizen Scraps CitizenCon Keynote Stream Fee
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